₦airaland Forum

musKeeto:
Thank you God. The same God that caused your phone to charge shall give you light that you may have sense. With God, everything is possible.

How many children got raped yesterday? Is this what God was doing at that time? Sounds legit.

lordnicklaus:
The translators did not translate it using correct terms. The word for "God" in Greek is "theos" and it can mean any "god" while the word used for "Almighty God" specifically is "ton theon" which means "the God" so in the Greek text, the real translation should be "In the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was a god (theos"

Are you admitting that the Bible isn't the true word of God after all? Since it's riddled with translation errors.

lordnicklaus:
Look, I know most of you are atheists, but you can't convert me to atheism because I have been a witness to many supernatural and spiritual happenings. Do not worry, when a witch curses you or when you see someone turn into a snake, then you would believe in God. Believe me, I have seen happenings more than the above mentioned.

Nobody is trying to deconvert you. They are just pointing out your flawed rationalizations of 'scientific facts' in the Bible and showing scientific inaccuracies of God's 'inerrant' word.

Try this one for size: Egypt was a flourishing empire during the time of Noah's flood which supposedly destroyed everything, as a matter of fact, some pyramids were already under construction during that time but they didn't get wiped out. How do you reconcile that with your beliefs?

Best thread I've seen in a long, long time.

KingEbukasBlog:
That was what obtainable during that dispensation tho

This is not coherent.

macsymphony:
If it is true that they never heard about christ or the gospel of our lord JESUS christ they will be judged based on their conscience. It will be subjected to weather they used the life GOD gave them to do evil or good

If so, then why do people go around proselytizing their religion?

KingEbukasBlog:
Are you forgetting the same Egyptians that enslaved the Israelities for 400 years and the numerous tribes that troubled Israel and took them captive . Ridiculing a prophet so close to God was actually the same as ridiculing God .

Yeah, right, all those kids who enslaved the israelites. Kill them all! /s

Yahweh's behaviour is suspiciously close to that of a dude who lived thousands of years ago.

MrAnony1:
Molecular self-assembly you say. How can anything that lacks agency possibly assemble itself in a specifically ordered mannaer? Or are you suggesting that molecules have conscious agency?

Molecular self-assembly is not speculation. It has been observed time and time again by chemists, it is just a type of chemical reaction where base organic compounds organize themselves into ordered structures. There's no debating that.

Nbote:
I watched Channels TV interview a senator on sunrise daily some moments ago and I realised d real issue with the rejection of the bill is religion. Judging from d example d senator gave, Islam is already clear on some things especially as it pertains to inheritance and as such going ahead with the bill is going to b deemed "offensive" by Muslims. With our diverse religious differences, some section of d bill is always going to remain controversial.

Funny, I thought we were a secular democracy so why are we running things like an Abrahamic theocracy?

Stupid funny joke below.

asalimpo:
They're too many uncanny accounts of
incidents of this nature.
too many. extra qualification, doesnt
disprove them.

Once again, you're making a claim without backing it up. How can I take your points seriously?

asalimpo:
Maybe , you dont know who nostradamus
is. For the whole world to be enamoured
with his predictions, means they were startling enough to arrest many people's attention. Not giving accurate time frame is just extra qualification imposed by you to water down his accounts.
The extra time frame is'nt the issue. It is
that his prophecies had enough detail in
them, amidst
the absence of full details on other issues,
to resemble events that happend later
such that
when those events occured the striking
similarity with his prophecies sparked
interest in his works.
I don't need to give examples, just do your
research. Fraud or not, the central theme
remains,
this fraud isnt possible if man is solely a
physical and complex machine.

Once again, if I say, "asalimpo, you'll hurt yourself", there's a good chance that you'll indeed hurt yourself one way or the other in your lifetime. A good prediction should be something like "asalimpo, you'll stub your small toe on your right foot before the end of the day". Now that's a prediction with that has less of a chance of being a guess if it does indeed happen.

Nostradamus has centuries at his disposal, his predictions read like poetry with enough verbal gymnastics to compensate for a wide range of events within no set time frame. That is cheating.

PS: Not giving examples makes your arguments seem like more like biased opinions.

asalimpo:
They'll never be enough qualifying
information to satisfy all sceptics.
Two, accounts of these nature have been
reported by many many people.
To be false, all these people have to be
liars or deluded- that's stretching it.

For example, you're a Christian. Don't you believe that other religions are on the 'wrong' path, but Islam alone has over half a billion followers, not to mention Jews, Hindus, or Bhuddists.

So why do you think all these people are wrong?

Furthermore, about 5 centuries ago. Everyone (or at least, a vast majority) believed that the planet was flat, weren't they all wrong?

This is a moot point.

asalimpo:
Scientific methods can only verify physical
phenomena. or phenomena subject to
physical observation.
The supernatural doesnt need to affect the
world. their merits or demerits is not the
issue.
One genuine true account of supernatural
encounter dismantles the assumption of
science/atheism.
that's all that's needed.
The other alternative is for atheism/
science to debunk all such claims as
forgeries and lies.

When a scientist makes a discovery, records of his experiments, methods are made available to his/her peers and the public for intense scrutiny. When peer-review corroborates with the scientist's findings then a general theory can be formulated. All other experiments on that theory are supposed to either prove or disprove the theory. The Lenski experiment; for example, has shown us a large number of events that further prove the theory of evolution.

If supernatural people want to be taken seriously then they should do the same. Provide all necessary information, perform supernatural feats in front of experts, break fundamental physical laws in front of physicists, then maybe they might be taken seriously. Until then, nobody is going to care.

asalimpo:
There's no biase there. The bible is well
known. And its supernatural stories are
well known.
The point i was making was that they're
occurences that defy logic/science.
Science can only comment on the physical,
when something is above the physical
science becomes inadequate.
So those things disproved by science may
just be science squinting at the
supernatural and denying it.
Bronze age book - think again.

Then prove it! Prove how the flood happened. Prove how Kangaroos got from the Middle East to Australia. Prove how two representatives of each of the 6 million land animal species managed to fit into a 45,000m³ boat. If you can't then no sane and honest scientist would ever take that as fact.

To be honest, you're just arguing in circles here.

jayriginal:
cloudgoddess, don't bother.

Yeah.. like, did you see those demented conspiracy theories? Is this what they are feeding our youth? I'm no psychiatrist but I like to think that I'll know a mental breakdown when I see one, and I've just seen one.

asalimpo:
if instincts are only brain functions, then no premonitions or fore knowing would occur.
Anything that hints to the future from the present ,accurately , would never and can never be explained
by creatures living in real time only.
And by hint, i dont mean, conjectures made from analysing past data/records.
While they're fake and false instances. They are real documented instances that defy science/logic.

You'll need to cite some sources of clearly worded predictions with a reasonable time frame that were fulfilled.

asalimpo:
If nostradamus predictions were all vague ,they wouldnt spark so much interests and controversy as they have. Some of his predictions were uncannily accurate.

They are vague because he speaks in generic 'metaphors' without giving accurate time frames of when the predicted events would occur. They have only sparked so much interest among people who chose to believe.

asalimpo:
When you say magicians, you are putting a twist on things.
You are asserting and classifying all para-normal occurences as frauds.
You are also dismissing the credibility and insulting the intelligence of reporters of those phenomena-
sorry, even this technique is biased and wrong.

I am not calling all of them frauds, I'm calling them mysterious. I'm calling them mysterious in the sense that not all the information is made available to the public. Therefore people fill up these gaps with the supernatural explanations.

Now, THAT is biased and wrong because the scientific method has expected properties, can be used to make predictions and lastly, has been successful with it. On the other hand, the supernatural is yet to affect the world in any meaningful manner.

asalimpo:
To your last question,
look at it in this light. The supernatural/spiritual simply is a higher level than the physical.
Trying to 'reason' logically about occurences from that realm with human logic can fail sometimes.
Because, there arena's where logic fail.

How can an axe head float?
How can a man walk on water?
How can a tree die after being spoken to?
How can a man ascend upwards , defying gravity?
How can certified dead people come back to life?

millenia after these events, science can't still answer these questions.
Writing all these off as hogwash, is actually unscientific. And therefore illogical.

Once again, these stories you cited are contained within the pages of a Bronze Age book of mythology that has had several of its conjectures disproved by science (eg: Noah's Flood is quite laughable).

To use that as a source of information is biased. To pick that particular book's mythology over all the other mythology that exists is also biased.

KingEbukaNaija:
To understand how intricately nature was designed we have to emulate it . So far in its emulation , we can infer that nature undeniably requires intelligence . For the chaos crew :

Again I'll use my pothole analogy. Potholes form on poorly constructed or old roads due to friction and agents of denudation.

But say, I suddenly want to replicate a particular pothole, wouldn't I need to take measurements? Wouldn't I suddenly to decide on the materials end equipment I need? Wouldn't I need to meticulously, chip away on a rock (or whatever material I choose) to form that particular pothole? Does that make the original pothole intelligently designed?

KingEbukaNaija:
1. Processes can be designed to be random even chaotic as you described and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

The sun gives white people skin cancer, that is NOT a desirable effect of the sun or being white. Also, solar winds are detrimental to humanity, a strong enough solar wind would do a lot of damage to civilization.

In other words, the so-called 'design' is still messed up in more ways than one. It seems more like life adapted to its surroundings rather than the other round.

KingEbukaNaija:
2. An observer can see processes as Random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer .

True, but to the audience, chaotic processes do nothing to prove that there is indeed a designer. In other words, external proof of the designer is still needed.

LoJ:


Just trying to get some of our people to be interested in Science. But they definitely do no want

I know right? Some people just need some π in their lives.

LoJ:
As for me, I would indeed pay, to read a good book from him. He's got the talent.

But yeah, it takes time, discipline and dedication to finish a book.

Maybe he can make a collection of some of his short stories instead of one long one?

LoJ:


You are truly talented. Why not write a kind of book

Yeah, I'll almost pay money to read a book from this guy.

The only problem is that I don't know if he has the massive dedication it takes to write one. I can see that he has lots of unfinished stories.

asalimpo:
some examples that do raise questions about the physical view being the absolute view of life.

1) guts/instinct.
------------------
pre science etc. Call it what you may. Instinct, the ability to sense a future event,
and in some cases predict them defies all physical laws. Why?
Because, to be explained physically, the person would have to be living ahead of time.

But instinct is nothing more than a function of the brain. Or can you say that instinct is never wrong? Is it 100% accurate?

asalimpo:
Go into the future, experience the event then return (assuming its non fatal ).
Nostradamus made many predictions that were spot on. How can that be explained from a physical
viewpoint, without stretching things.

Nostradamus made predictions that were 'fulfilled' 100s of years late
r. Right now I can make a vaguely worded 'prediction' and if given enough time, then something can be rationalized to be the fulfillment of that 'prophecy'. Here goes:

"Deep in the recesses of the concrete jungle, rivers of fire will consume life, darkening the skies and consuming the sun for a time. Man, woman, child, and beast would perish" -CoolUsername

Now that is just fancy talk for a volcanic eruption or probably a forest fire.

asalimpo:
2) physically impossible feats
-----------------------------------
A monk who drills his head with a powerful electric drill and is unhurt.
A man who starts a fire by simply concentrating his hands on an object.

I've talked about magicians who make you see only what they want you see. Since these men are the performers in a sense, the audience only gets a limited amount of information from each act. If all facts are given to us, there would most likely be an explanation.

As the old saying (which I totally made up) goes:
"Absence make the heart grow fonder.
Mystique makes the mind go yonder and wander."

asalimpo:
Physically, these are impossible but they've been demonstrated.
From a physical viewpoint, the toughness of the skin would crack up under a drill.
If one wants to throw in the "power of the mind stuff", note that the mind is just a physical
organ with chemicals firing off in the brain. It is nothing but a chemical process.
Thoughts and will are chemical reactions in the brain.
So what chemical reaction, when fired up, could make the skin,bone so dense and powerful,
it becomes tougher than steel ?

Now let's employ a bit of logic, if these men are indeed using supernatural powers to perform these feats, then that raises a few questions, how can supernatural energy, fill a physical space or interact with physical energy or matter? For example concentrating to ignite an object would require 'super' energy to create an exothermic reaction.

From chemistry, exothermic reactions give off heat to the surroundings, heat is a form of physical energy, so would it be safe to say that fire is a medium for converting supernatural energy to physical energy? If so, then why do all combustion obey the law of conservation of energy? An undetectable energy source should theoretically cause an imbalance in the enthalpy, right? But we just don't see that.

EDIT: Grammar x Formatting

asalimpo:
Then, the bible would be a myth.
It would be a man made book full of lies.

Actually, whether God exists or not, the Bible is most likely a man-made book full of lies

asalimpo:
Any evidence, invalidating the theory that life is only physical would
shatter atheism foundation.

Not necessarily, there are 'spiritual atheists' who believe in the supernatural. But yes, it would make me thoroughly rethink my stance. May I venture to ask what would make you rethink yours?

asalimpo:
They are many reported /documented occurences that defy physical explanation, hence
life cannot be physical only. therefore, there's more to life than the physical hence atheism is false.
And just a notion.

Thank you for the wording here. You said 'reported' and 'documented' occurences. Now can predictions be made with these anecdotes? Are there expected values to be gleaned from the supernatural. Science (ideally) presents clear evidence and 100% honesty in it's findings, while the supernatural is always shrouded on mysticism (no one wants to tell you their 'secret technique'), and you know who else does that?

A magician.

Criss-angels has walked on water, sawed a woman in half without killing her, while the severed legs walked about, and slit his throat. We can't always explain his secrets due to limited evidence but he doesn't claim that they're supernatural. In fact, he writes books to reveal them much later.

So, if people can perform supernatural feats and are 100% sure that these feats are actually supernatural, then they should document their process to the bare bones so that the layman can understand it.

PS: Emphasis on my question: if anything, what can make you rethink your views?

MrAnony1:
1. Who observed this process take place? Can you provide any evidence that this is actually how the eye came to exist and not merely someone's guess?

There are no eyewitness testimonies in this matter, we don't live for millions of years. What we do have is a crime scene of what happened, and scientists piece the case with available evidence. And you see, eyewitness testimonies are in no way superior to inferences. DNA sampling, has helped to exonerate hundreds of condemned murderers ever since it was developed. In summary, we don't have to place all the burden on eyewitness testimony when we have logical inference.

MrAnony1:
2. The most basic micro-organisms from which you kick off your argument are already complex functional systems themselves. You were asked to show how a complex functional system could come from base elements without intelligence. I didn't ask you to show how a complex functional system can become a more complex functional system.

Ah, but cells are just products of molecular self-assembly. Self-assembly of lipids and proteins form the cell membrane and DNA material, respectively. No outside interference is necessary.

MrAnony1:
3. I don't think it is good scientific practice to propound theories when no actual observations have been made. Yes, the eye could well have evolved exactly the way that you claim it did but this remains pure speculation unless the process has actually been observed.

A scientific theory is pure not speculation, DNA sampling, radioisotope dating, and therefore the entire atomic theory all have to be wrong for the evidence that they bring to be discredited.

But all these theories have been proven to be correct in many different and separate applications. Why do they suddenly have to be wrong in the case of evolution?

Seun:
Prayer is great! If you want to feel as if you've helped someone without actually spending your time or money on the person, you can just pray!

Not just that, it also makes you feel better than others because you've 'helped' in the best way possible! /s

KingEbukaNaija:
For the umpteenth time , to the observer processes can be random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer . This is the same argument atheists bring up everywhere . Na wa oo !

And again , processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

Smh . Try harder

Let's look at potholes on Nigerian roads for example, they are caused by gradual wear and tear from the tyres of vehicles and are made worse by rain.

So from your argument here is it safe to say that God designed those potholes? Y'know, those things that cause accidents all the time.

MrAnony1:
1. What is Nature exactly?

Nature is the name given to the forces that seem to govern the earth. Sometimes, the definition may extend to the observable universe.

MrAnony1:
2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat?

Not necessarily.

MrAnony1:
3. If Nature is not intelligent then how do we explain the existence of goats?

Scientifically, all organisms share an amount of DNA with each other. Genetic mapping can show us the closest relatives to the goat.

It is rather evident that goats have not existed forever. Through radioisotope dating, scientists have dated layers of sedimentary rock according to when they were lain. Consequently, with this method, can easily know the period an animal lived by the particular layer a fossil is found.

A very simplified version can be found [url=kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-107857/The-geologic-time-scale-showing-major-evolutionary-events-from-650]here[/url]

Till date, no mammal has ever been found in Devonian rock for example -and I don't mean that they are statistically fewer, I actually mean 'zero', and no dinosaur has ever been found in rock that was lain after the Cretaceous period. So it's safe to say that mammals haven't always existed, right?

The scientific consensus is that mammals descended from synapsids (you should look that up) which weren't true reptiles, now these synapsid fossils also happen to exist before mammalian fossils. From there, natural selection and other evolutionary catalysts would have given rise to goats.

It's not so difficult to imagine once you have some background knowledge.

MrAnony1:
4. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?

Let's talk about the evolutionary hypothesis of the eye, the eye started out as a simple photo-sensitive spot, capable of detecting shadows on the body of a microorganism, the second step was an indention of that spot which helped a descendant of the original microorganism detect the direction of light, step three was the partial closing of that indentation to form a rudimentary pinhole, to produce images, while the final involves the formation of a lens.

This shows how series of beneficial genetic mutations in a population, could have been preserved over time through natural selection (eyes help to detect predators) and refined into what we know today.

This hypothesis is solid because there is a known organism for each evolutionary 'step' that was talked about.

analice107:
Semantics.
A particular group of people who are what, and that does what? These group of people must be doing something peculiar. They must be known for something right? So you are invariably saying that atheism is a sect.(?) a particular group of fools who say there's no God. Fine. I rest my case.

Whatever.

Go on then, I can't respect you any less.

analice107:
That's because hate speeches are either bigotry or racial. And atheism is neither a race nor a religion. If am wrong I need to learn.

According to merriam-webster.com,
[hate speech is] speech expressing hatred of a particular
group of people.

So why limit it to only race and religion?

Top kek.

Even funnier that some fundies are actually believing this, please people be skeptical.

I thought Lucy said you should stop talking to that guy!

analice107:
Oh, I never knew there's hate speech against atheism. Ah didn't they say atheism is not a religion? because I use to think hate speeches are directed at religious groups. Lolzzzzzz

No, hate speech can't only be directed towards religious groups. Why did you ever think so?

Whip that nigger in the name of Jeezus!

postmann:
Please tell me you've not been trading insults from page 1 of this thread.
Hollow-headed hypocrite.

Oh, I didn't know I was arguing with an old loser.
Btw, you started it.

postmann:
This quote of yours was what I actually termed kindergarten stuff!

Really you must be somewhere around 17-18 years of age.

That's my humble belief judging from your mental capacity.

You're really the definition of SHAMELESSNESS!
Kindly recite the crap you typed up there.

Is that how you intended to fightback, dumbass, egg-headed simpleton?

Little wonder you surrendered your dignity to some bunch of female bandits?

lazy ass, nancy-pansy, effeminate, weakling.

Where is Janet?

She is now in the masculine arms of the darktroll.
And she'll get all the protection she deserves.

Now make a girlish squeal in Britney Spears' voice. And while at it, beat down on your imaginary breasts in despair like a girl would.

#NancyBoy

Seriously if you're over 23 and are still trading insults online, then we have an actual problem.

Shows you the calibre of men who are afraid of women.

postmann:
Does it bother you?

At least let him wash it in your trachea.