Olabenjamen22:


Nigeria was greated in 1960, so it seems you are the one talking trash here.

the president day Nigeria had several kingdoms like nok, benin, oyo empire, borgu, etc. Thats what I was referring to. If there was a great flood one of them must have had it in oral history. The eqyptians who has physical records have no record of a great flood aswell

Hmmmmmmmm waoooooooo, with this kind of news faith of many comes alive

Zico5:
All these discoveries are wack to me. Nobody can accurately state the age of this earth, so how sure are they that the discovery is Noah ark. It's mere speculation.

Is like you didn't read the full story. The scientists said they have a device with which they detect the age of any material. The age limit is 60,000 years and the one they said they found is 6000 according to what one of them wrote. I have also ask this question before but I am happy I read it today that there is a device for that

op op op the ark is in ijebu. they have cut it down for firewood

They (Scientists) believe there was a voyage.. but neglect the God factor.

Sofistcatdmoron:
I thought they said scientists dont believe in the bible

They believe there was a voyage.. but neglect the God factor.

Ibime:
To believe that Noah's ark was found, you first have to believe that all the animals in the world can fit on one boat.

Noah's Ark story is the one story from the Bible that made me lose belief in the Bible completely.

God is not man, a lot of things you will never in your life believe, my pastor years ago said we were going in the car, the tire burst, the tires were literally, he called upon God and tap the car real hard, we don’t know how the air blew it, we don’t know the tire sewed itself back, we moved again

And we have witnessed more

Zico5:
All these discoveries are wack to me. Nobody can accurately state the age of this earth, so how sure are they that the discovery is Noah ark. It's mere speculation.

Lol, who told you this? Any material that is organic can be dated. Once there's carbon in it, you'll get the date sir

Farki:


Leviticus 11:1-8

11 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Quoting the Bible highlighting certain areas without saying a word of your own, saying why you quoted it or highlighted the areas only dipcts how senseless and stupid you and the spirit directing you are.

If you dedicate the same time you use in finding faults in the Bible to searching the opinion of the world about your religion, you would know that without your religion in existence, the world would have been a better peaceful place.



You've got no sense to back the fault you are looking for in the places you quoted and highlighted up.

It still shows pure undiluted senselessness.

WILLuKPquiet:


Quoting the Bible highlighting certain areas without saying a word of your own, saying why you quoted it or highlighted the areas only dipcts how senseless and stupid you and the spirit directing you are.

Good, you are finally understanding how senseless and stupid the writers of the Bible are because they can't seem to grasp basic biology and call rabbits ruminants.

If you dedicate the same time you use in finding faults in the Bible to searching the opinion of the world about your religion, you would know that without your religion in existence, the world would have been a better peaceful place.

What religion is that? You think I am one of the people who believe in Jewish and Arabian tales by the moonlight? Or wastes my time talking to invisible people?

Farki:


Good, you are finally understanding how senseless and stupid the writers of the Bible are because they can't seem to grasp basic biology and call rabbits ruminants.



What religion is that? You think I am one of the people who believe in Jewish and Arabian tales by the moonlight? Or wastes my time talking to invisible people?

Blabbing blabber is babbling
Blab blab blab.
Hatred for Christians is killing him.
Die die die.
E wan commit suicide o
E go die die die


The hatred for Christians will kill you one day. Betta take am softly softly.

WILLuKPquiet:


Blabbing blabber is babbling
Blab blab blab.
Hatred for Christians is killing him.
Die die die.
E wan commit suicide
E go die die die


The hatred for Christians will kill you one day. Betta take am softly softly.

Of course he could not defend the idiocy in the bible which is why he is babbling nonsense like a child.

Farki:


Of course he could not defend the idiocy in the bible which is why he is babbling nonsense like a child.

Will you keep quiet!!!

E pain am!



If you see how I dey roll for floor you go just pai finally.

Cry till eternity, e no "coinsine" me o.


Softly softly ooo. You wan enter market square be DAT. The demons are tormenting your life.

Jesus loves you

flyingpig:
Many ships have capsized in the annals of history and sunken to the depth of the ocean, so how sure are they it is that particular ark?

If you say carbon dating to the age ark sunk, was man not sailing some years before the ark sunk, so how will you make the difference? It's not as if the full and exact measurement of the ark remains till date to isolate it from another.

Please there's no certainty thats the ark

Clearly u did not read the story of Noah. The Ark did not sink, it rested on a mountain called Ararat in current Turkey. How many ships have u discovered on top of a mountain.

When it comes to the Bible the unbelief in us tend to begin to explain the Bible away.

Alot of people especially the first page commenters did not read the story but just the headline.

However, if they actually read it, they would easily know that alot of experts doubt the discovered Ark.

Queenyprinxex:
Scientists are confused stags.

"a group of evangelical christians were convinced that they had found the remains of Noah's Ark."

WILLuKPquiet:


Will you keep quiet!!!

E pain am!



If you see how I dey roll for floor you go just pai finally.

Cry till eternity, e no "coinsine" me o.


Softly softly ooo. You wan enter market square be DAT. The demons are tormenting your life.

Jesus loves you

You seem very concerned when you rushed to make an impotent defence of the buybull.

Farki:


You seem very concerned when you rushed to make an impotent defence of the buybull.

Cry on

I dey here for you. No handkerchief to wipe your tears.

WILLuKPquiet:
j

You've made a lot of nonsense guy.

The top of the mountain is cold and cold preserves things. And besides scientists have claimed to find woods older than that.

What about the fossils of 100 billion years they tell you mugus they found everyday.

Because they are scientists you believe them like zombies but have you known that there are thousands of science claims that were later found to be wrong?

For your eye you are smart.

I didn't get u, come again!!!

Passionate888:
So it's real? What would atheist say now?

same thing they said when orthodox and Protestant Christians are shown different tombs of Jesus in Jerusalem...

gypsey:
Rubbish!

tell me what's different from what you have written above and my explainations,

you still didn't tell me what language your bible is written

in what languange was the story of the bible in which you understand is written?
can you read latin, Greek or hebrew? is king Jame bible not a bible?

i am not sure if you are laughing at your ignorance or who's, either way keep laughing only i didn't find anything funny here. i am here to learn i don't know it all.

I'm sorry if how I laughed got to you, it was just too funny to claim that the Bible was WRITTEN by the British

What was different was that I explained that the Bible was written in an original language which is different from what the language of the Brits and they only made a TRANSLATION into English language while you claimed that it was written by the British folks (KJV)

I already explained o. It was written in Hebrew and Greek and translated in to so many languages of the world

I read the English translation and Yoruba translation of the Bible
I cannot read Latin, Greek or Hebrew and KJV is only a TRANSLATION of the Bible just as there is a Yoruba or Hausa translation of the BIble


Like I said already, I apologize if how I laughed got to you. I am not the ignorant one here, though I don't know it all

I just hope you get the concept of translation. Tsu Zu's art of war was WRITTEN in the Chinese language but we read an English TRANSLATION of it. We can say that it was written by the British.
Once again, I apologize if how I laughed got to you

Peace

Lordcassy:


BRO ALL YOU SAID HERE IS RUBBISH.. STOP CONFUSING YOUR TINY BRAIN AND IF YOU ARE A STUDENT OF BIOLOGY THEN YOU ARE A BAD ONE....firstly you can not compare bacteria and viruses evolution with that of mammals. E.coli replicates within 5minutes and even at that can not undergo mutation with out extreme stress and external activity like subjecting them to low antibiotics that they now become resistant to it that does not mean it a new species it is still E.coli just that it is resistant to some antibiotics. hyenas in south africa and the ones in the desert have difference in appearance that does not mean that it is a different hyena. they just have different way of conserving and adapting to environment. that does not make them different species
IF FAR EASIER FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUSES TO EVOLVE AS THEY ARE ONE OF THE SIMPLEST FORM OF LIFE AND FOR THE FACT THAT YOU SAID ANIMAL CAN DO THAT IN 500 YEARS SICKENS ME.

WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 9 MILLION SPECIES OF ANIMAL KNOWN SO FAR.. SO MALE AND FEMALE WOULD BE 18 MILLION BRO GO AND MEASURE NOAH ARK AND TELL HOW THE HELL YOU WANT TO FIT ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ON THE ARK? TELL ME

Is making an informed comment which is different from what you know rubbish? Then do your research before calling what you are yet to know rubbish. Calling it rubbish does not refute it, it is just a fallacy
Then, I never compared EVOLUTION of bacteria or viruses to that of mammals. That is another fallacy (strawman). How you read that into what I wrote still amaze me.
What you said has no relevance to what I said earlier but I guess you are not familiar with how a ‘new specie’ is defined: If a population arises from another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent population, it is generally defined as a new species. And this has been observed. In fact, an 18 year study by Zoologist Peter Grant has shown that new species could arise in only 200 years (in the journal, Scientific American). Though it is believed that species branch off from a common ancestor in tens of thousands of years, but real observations have been made by Biologist of how rapid adaptation to new environments, leading to ‘new specie’ is formed, such as guppies in Trinidad ( an evolutionist said this happened in just 4 years which is a rate 10,000 to 10 million times faster than what is being ‘read’ in the fossil record), lizards in Bahamas, mosquitoes in London underground station, etc
My point remains that 4500 years ago is good for speciation (diversification) from the original ‘kinds’ that disembarked from the ark. I said 500 years is not a small number not to talk of 4500 years, how you changed that again to mean that I said “animals can do that…” in 500 years amaze me still. I want to believe that the person who thinks that I’m a bad student of biology (wrong though) and have tiny brain should be able to comprehend and not misrepresent my ideas.
Finally, asking how 9 million species of animals fit into the ark is still another fallacy of arguing with a wrong premise. No informed creationist believes in fixation of species but the model predicts rapid speciation (which has been observed) from the few original kind. I already talked about it in my first response

Pelecius:

I'm sorry if how I laughed got to you, it was just too funny to claim that the Bible was WRITTEN by the British

What was different was that I explained that the Bible was written in an original language which is different from what the language of the Brits and they only made a TRANSLATION into English language while you claimed that it was written by the British folks (KJV)

I already explained o. It was written in Hebrew and Greek and translated in to so many languages of the world

I read the English translation and Yoruba translation of the Bible
I cannot read Latin, Greek or Hebrew and KJV is only a TRANSLATION of the Bible just as there is a Yoruba or Hausa translation of the BIble


Like I said already, I apologize if how I laughed got to you. I am not the ignorant one here, though I don't know it all

I just hope you get the concept of translation. Tsu Zu's art of war was WRITTEN in the Chinese language but we read an English TRANSLATION of it. We can say that it was written by the British.
Once again, I apologize if how I laughed got to you

Peace

You have made no sense atall, what's with the repetetion of laughed at me? you didn't need to apologise either your laugh didn't mean a damm thing to me, I only mentioned it to let you know how irrelevant and unfunny it was, so stop with the silly apology repetetions it's distastefully creepy, You don't have to respond this time you still would make no sense to me, i am neither religious nor a christian, I don't believe God/Jesus ever existed. not interested.

mind how you go, Ciao!

gypsey:
You have made no sense atall, what's with the repetetion of laughed at me? you didn't need to apologise either your laugh didn't mean a damm thing to me, I only mentioned it to let you know how irrelevant and unfunny it was, so stop with the silly apology repetetions it's distastefully creepy, You don't have to respond this time you still would make no sense to me, i am neither religious nor a christian, I don't believe God/Jesus ever existed. not interested.

mind how you go, Ciao!

Of course I will respond.
A point of correction here is that I never apologize for laughing at you. I apologized in case my laugh (about your claim) got to you. They are two different things
I am not here to make you believe in God, I can't do that. It's God who can do that through his Spirit.
Saying I make no sense doesn't make your assertion right. It's more of an emotional response. I apologized as a civil man and a Christian for not insulting you but laughing at a very funny statement, yet you said I don't make sense.
It's only important to note that one who is ready to learn does not shut his mind.

Peace be unto you

joyandfaith:


there is nothing science can do accurately

Nothing is ever accurate, but the best form of doing anything for now is science

dazzlingd:


Nothing is ever accurate, but the better form of doing anything for now is science

scientitific knowledge can be obsolete and outdated.

WILLuKPquiet:


Quoting the Bible highlighting certain areas without saying a word of your own, saying why you quoted it or highlighted the areas only dipcts how senseless and stupid you and the spirit directing you are.

If you dedicate the same time you use in finding faults in the Bible to searching the opinion of the world about your religion, you would know that without your religion in existence, the world would have been a better peaceful place.



You've got no sense to back the fault you are looking for in the places you quoted and highlighted up.

It still shows pure undiluted senselessness.

He is actually still behind. Those stuff have been refuted long ago but I guess he is not up to date.
It was the same biology that he used (not him anyway, cos I believe he only copied what a biblioskeptic wrote) that was still used in refuting the attack.
A simple search of 'does rabbit chew the cud?' is just enough to see 100s of pages that have answered that old and refuted challenge

joyandfaith:


scientitific knowledge can be obsolete and outdated.

This is the tasteless thing I've ever heard...

What can be more obsolete and outdated than books written thousand of years ago by cave men with no single invention ever made from them

dazzlingd:


This is the tasteless thing I've ever heard...

What can be more obsolete and outdated than books written thousand of years ago by cave men with no single invention ever made from them

mention any part of Bible that is outdated and I will tell u many outdated things in science. in few decades from now what we know in science will be absolute rubbish.