₦airaland Forum

cold:
Source please

The bible as we know today it today was put together through the votes of the catholic bishops about 300 years after the death of Jesus. The bible as we know it was put together by the catholic bishops and without them and what they did we would have no bible, They also choose the names to give to the gospels(apostolic traditions). Go study a little history.

I went to the emirate counter in Istanbul Airport (Turkey) and I was told that as long as my destination is Lagos airport I will have to pay in cash not through my credit card.

The supernatural has no clear or unequivocal definition IMO.

noetic2:
I was not mocking u, I was only laughing.

You seem to assume that the atheists on this forum are intelligent or knowledgeable. To the contrary, they . . . . . ,  . .


They CANNOT answer ur question and will only insult u or attempt to change the topic. Atheism is disguised foolishness aimed at hiding one's ignorance of pertinent issues pertaining to life. Atheists, as evidenced on this forum, continue to hide under the spectrum of independent mind and science, none of which is alien to religion.

I have been on this road before, and I can confidently tell u, that the most vocal atheists on this forum are not worth engaging in an intellectually driven debate. They enjoy noise making.

Every body (both believers and atheist alike are) culpable. The same could be said of Christianity or any other religion. Science is alien to all religions because science is yet to support the assertions of any religion. If you say that science supports the Christian assertion then its up to you to prove it.

On the other hand science has disproved some of the assertions of the bible.

noetic2:
Fine. I copied established claims but presented them in my own understanding. why didnt u, mazaje and toneyb do the same? why did u all just copy and paste?

why should I defend the claims, when nothing u said came from ur own understanding? u had no reason to disagree cos u did not show any understanding of the subject matter, all u did was to antagonise my position for convenience.

If and when u disagree with any of my positions and can defend ur claims without copy-paste inactions, I will gladly engage u. otherwise I consider it all pointless.

why not study the evidences available, understand what they entail and take a position. If u disagree with my position, then fine, we can debate.
,

Established claims by who? The claims are not yours, all you did was copy and paste them by simply parapharsing what the original writer wrote down. The writers claims have been refuted, I can also parapharse and claim that as my own understanding, it seems you are not really interested in having any kind of conversation on this because you do not really understand the issue any better than me.

Mrs.Oyibo:
I need a rant!

Bought a great MP3 player for hubby's bday. He was delighted with it and uses it almost everyday. However, a few days ago it stopped working, no idea why. My husband asked me to produce the receipt so that he could go and have it repaired. I replied, truthfully, that I had no idea where the receipt was or even if I'd kept it. Seemingly he thought I was joking because tonight he threw the MP3 player next to me and said that it was of no use to him now that it's broken and that I should just throw it in the bin or do whatever I wanted with it. This was accompanied by a mundane monologue about how someone could buy their partner an expensive birthday gift and not keep the receipt for it.
I can't tell you how shocked I was at his behaviour. Sure, maybe I should have kept the receipt but it's hardly a crime that I didn't. And losing the receipt hardly warrants him being so rude. He's behaving like a spoilt child and I think that his attitude sucks.
So ladies and gentleman, I want to know if you think that this rude attitude is a Man thing? A Nigerian Man thing? Or is just specific to my man?

Are you serious ?

noetic2:
you and toneyb said u got ur refutations from talk origin and wikipedia. so why on earth should I reply u guys?

apart from the fact I dont draw issues with toneyb. . . .u (dalaman) clearly stated that u knew nothing about the subject matter, why should i debate with u, if u are going to rely entirely on google and wikipedia? i'd better debate with google or wikipedia.

Even the renowned nairaland geologist, mazaje, could not REFUTE anything from his head, he had to copy and paste.

I consider it intellectually unhealthy to debate with anyone who relies on other sources to refute my claims, without displaying any amount of understanding. No offence intended. . . . .but I assumed that u, mazaje and toneyb were simply antagonising my stance without any concrete reason but based on pre-conceived atheistic sentiments.

I am sorry but the claims are not yours, you only copied the claims of others. I am not an atheist, you said that the post from wikipedia and talk origin did not refute your claims, Toneyb and I showed where they refuted your claims in details, I at least expected you to come and defend your position but you never did you simply refused to address them. I am not antagonizing your stance I only copied and pasted the refutations to your claims from talk origin, Toneyb did the same from wikipedia, you should defend your position at least.

noetic2:
where were u when mazaje, huxley and other atheists and geologists could not refute the overbearing evidences that established noah's flood?

ever heard of polystrate fossils? Do a google search on nairaland.

Toneyb and I did, You on the other hand did not even refute any of the questiones they asked you only said that they copied and pasted without refuting it. By the way there is no geological word as "polystrate fossils". It is not even a geological according to wikipedia and the other link that was provided.

21. How can u foolishly believe that God's covenant with Noah caused the rainbow. Science has proven otherwise.

Scientific evidences that establish that Noah's flood indeed happened have been tendered on this forum, our resident atheists and geologist COULD NOT refute this evidences.

You have tendered no such scientific evidence. There are no real archaeological or geological evidences of a global flood.  There are plenty of half-baked christian apologist' interpretation of data that seem to point to a global flood, but good science always shoot them down. It is ok, very ok to believe in the bible account of the global flood but there is no geological evidence for it.

Deleted for double posting.

Its the way they shout "go and research" that gets me laughing. If Mich had "researched" at all instead of bullying everyone who doesnt agree with her depraved state of mind she shld know that consensual incest IS ACCEPTED in France and[b] Holland. Incest marriage is allowed in Sweden.
[/b]
Now why does she support gay rights but not incest? Are the brother and sister pair not citizens with rights?

@ davidylan if only you will also stop bullying any body that does not agree with your depraved state of mind and stop resorting to lies when making your points you will know that incest is not allowed in Holland and incest marriage is NOT allowed in Sweden.

The Netherlands

Incest is illegal in the Netherlands. It is forbidden to have children with any first, second, or third degree relative, as it is in any other European country.

It is also illegal to have sexual intercourse with a minor. Minors are allowed to have intercourse with another minor, and although it is forbidden by law, it is generally accepted when a 17-year-old engages intercourse with an 18-year-old, however, larger age differences usually are not accepted and therefore considered a crime.

On the issue of marriage for minors, a minor may only marry with the permission of their parents or legal guardians, without it, the marriage is unlawful,   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest

Sweden

It is illegal for siblings to get married in Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest


http://www.skatteverket.se/folkbokforing/ovrigt/aktenskap.4.18e1b10334ebe8bc80004956.html

davidylan:
this is simply called - dishonesty!

So because i bring up a point that is supported by another automatically = plagiarized from the site? Do you know what plagiarism means? Can you pls show me a line that i DIRECTLY lifted from the alleged website?

So as long as someone else has raised a point it would be plagiarism for another person to independently come to the same conclusion?

Reminds me of someone on the politics thread who accused me of "plagiarising" Rick Warren's stance on gay marriage even though i had NEVER seen the Rick Warren video It seems many of you assume that the rest of us are just like you brainless trolls who run around the internet borrowing ideas and posting them here.

By the way i notice that is just ONE OF TWO threads where you have curiously disappeared as soon as your porous knowledge of the bible was exposed.

The person that is dishonest is you. Remember that on the other thread you said that you agreed with the time line that was provided by toneyb when he corrected you, only for you to make a complete U turn after visiting the website you copied the new time line from after you had visited the website. By the way all your arguments were lifted from that website it is very obvious. You took the guys argument dressed it up and presented it as yours, the same thing you are accusing the atheist of doing. Can you show me where my porous knowledge of the bible has been exposed? Remember that an atheist had to correct you when you displayed your very porous knowledge of the bible and you even conceded that you were wrong and he was right. Even if you had seen Rick Warrens video do I expect you to say that you have seen it? You will lie and say that you have never seen it before.

davidylan:
err which argument exactly dude?  Seems your stock in trade is under-cut david wherever possible.

I'd like to know EXACTLY what thread, EXACTLY what argument was "copied and pasted" [/b]and pls produce the source where you suspect it was plagiarized from. Enough of having fools just post because they have prior animus.

Here is the Thread. The argument was with regards to the time that Jesus was crucified. You copied and pasted most of your arguments from Here

Here is what you wrote in your reply to Toneyb

No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . [b]the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! [/b]A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.

Here is what is written in the website where you plagiarized what you had to say.

[b]The Roman times of day, are just as English Time, the Third Hour would be literally the Third Hour, from 12am (6am). The Jewish Day starts at about Evening of one day (about 6pm or so), to the evening of the next day, whereas Roman time, the day starts at 12am.

     In Mark 15:25 we see Jesus crucified in the Third Hour, which is about from 6am-9am. In John 19:14 it appears to be the Sixth hour, 9am-12pm, when Pilate brought Jesus before the crowd, right before Jesus was sentenced to Crucifixion! Is there a contradiction? It honestly appears to be . . . but it's not! The difference is the system of time that Mark wrote in, and John wrote in! Mark, wrote in the Jewish times of day, while John wrote in the Roman times of day!.

Another thing that makes sense in light of all this, is that in John it is mentioned the "Seventh hour" (John 4:52). Unless it's mistaken, there was no "seventh hour" in New Testament Jewish time of day, but indeed there is in Roman time of day!

I noticed that after mazaje posted the link to where you plagiarized and got your talking points from the second time you ran away from the thread. You plagiarized another person's argument dressed it up as yours and posted it as if the idea was originally yours. Next time learn to cite your source.

davidylan:
Bindex cuts and pastes ANOTHER "argument" without citing sources?

Did you cite your own sources when you copied and pasted another person's argument on the other thread?

pilgrim.1:
Okay, gentlemen. . . I got to go for now, until maybe laterz in the pm - if not, then tomorrow I'd be eagerly here to see what concerns you guys have.

To my atheists friends, I want you to know something: pilgrim.1 is not set against you guys as if it's a do-or-die matter. No. Rather, my interest is to draw an enabling atmosphere to discuss and then see what 'evidence' of the realities of our world could be deduced. Does that mean that I can always and at anytime provide "evidence" and/or "proof" for my worldview? No, absolutely not. Why? Because the sort of 'evidence' one might be asking for may or may not lead where my enquirers are tending to.

I agree with you, I don't think that there is any theist that can provide any evidence or the kind of evidence the atheist need. That is why I laugh at some Christian Philisophers when they try to say that they can provide "evidence" for the existence of God, after going through their so called "evidence" you see that there are so many holes in them and they end up giving Christians a bad name. They use science where they believe that its assertions will help them futher their points and throw it under the bus when they see that scientific assertions go against what they are asserting. They use the bible and try to make it say things that it does not say in other to reconcile it with some scientific postulations and throw the bible away when their opponets point out some of the scientific errors in the bible. I very much agree with you that there is no such evidence that can be provided. I have seen a Christian apologist trying to use mathematical formular and equations to prove the ressurection of Jesus, after the debate when his opponet asked him some question he ended up looking very silly.

Now, what if they ask me questions about the basic point in my approach so far? Would there be any evidence of any kind that persuades me of the veracity of reality such as could not be addressed by the naturalism espoused by atheists (by that, I mean 'hard core atheists')? My answer is yes - and there are several of them.

I will like you to state them if you have the time.

At the end of the day, it does not mean therefore that I have "won" the debate/discourse. It basically mean for me that there's an underlying reason why I do not have the faith to be an atheist.

Let me leave it there for now until laterz. Meanwhile, you guys take it easy and enjoy plenty.

I don't think that the debate can ever be won, even if the debate is won it still doesn't prove anything on both sides IMO. It could only help those on both sides that have an open mind to take a deeper look at their own positions and re-examine or reconsider it.

OLAADEGBU:
The kind of "Christians" that believe in the Evolution theory are your own kind of Christianity, in name only.  In the U.S. alone we have more than 10,000 Christians scientists that believe in biblical creationism, below are a few of them and you can click on the link to peruse their biographies.

Danny Faulkner         Ph.D.  Astronomy
John Byl                     Ph.D.  Astronomy
Tom Greene               Ph.D.  Astronomy
James Dire                 Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Dave Harrison            Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd               Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones     Th.D., Ph.D.  Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt                    Ph.D.  Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole                Ph.D.  Semitic languages
Georgia Purdon          Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish                Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton            Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick          Ph.D.  Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene              Ph.D.  Astronomy
Jason Lisle                Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys   Ph.D  Physics
Don DeYoung            Ph.D.  Physics
Terry Mortenson       Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner   Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton            Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh         Ph.D.  Combustion Theory
John Johnson           Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel          M.D.
Andrew Snelling       Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre           Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su                 Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt           Ph.D. Neuroscience

You can check the weblink below for the list of a few[b] other Christian creationists,[/b] read about the [b]early and modern Christians [/b]as well as their biographies of interest:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

There are also millions of Christian/Christian scientist that also believe in evolution,I say this because most of the Christian scientist I know here believe in evolution you begin by saying that there are over 10,000 Christians that believe in evolution but you gave a link to a website that mentions people like Galileo? How do you expect any body to take you and the website you posted seriously? Galileo was not a Christian. Dr Thomas Young I know does not believe in creationism he was not even a Christian. He was a Quaker and Quakers are not Christians. You talk about Chritian scientist that believe in creationism and list the names of atheist/agnostics and Quakers? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

bindex:
@Dalama

Are you sure you are not an atheist?

Do you want me to become one?

Hi pilgrim.1,

Let me begin by saying that I am not an atheist I am just trying to present most of the arguments that they are have been presenting and I also get some talking points from my colleague and very good friend here who is an atheist.

pilgrim.1:
Hi dalaman,

Just a salient point here: you assume far too much and arrive at a narrow conscript. Why does the atheist assume that it is his prerogative to "disprove" the claims of theism - whether Christian or any other? Does that not in itself suggest that you really haven't grasp what atheism is in essence? It is not about whether a particular deity exists or not, but whether ANY evidence could point to the reality of the supernatural. It is not only the Christian that believes in the supernatural, but other theists as well do - which again would in essence draw in the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in 'gods, spirits', etc. If the 'atheist' whom you hoot for is going to be quite informed about the realities of our world, what would be his focus - to "dis[/b]prove" this reality? It's like you already made up your mind even before asking for a dialogue.

I do not agree to any thing I am just presenting the case that atheist have made that is way I admitted that I might be wrong when stating some of the case, my friend (atheist) friend here saw me reading the post and told me what he believes and I typed it based on his reaction to the first post. I again agree with what you have said.

It could be taken in precisely the same way as you assumed earlier -[b] to say that there is NO evidence does not mean that the Christian has not made any attempt to provide such an evidence; at best, it is rather that the atheist does not agree with the evidence thus proffered. To assume there is "no evidence" is to arrive at a dogmatic position before even investigating evidence for the reality of the major claim that the atheist is averse to: the supernatural.

I said the atheist believes that the evidence is not credible, I also said that when Christians(I speak about Christianity because I believe that is the theism we are talking about here) presents the Bible as his evidence the atheist say it is not evidence enough or evidence at all because of some of the problems that are associated with the bible like contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies and the somewhat contradictory nature of God himself that is portrayed in the Bible. Even though I agree that the bible is evidence for the Christian faith, the atheist disagress based on the problems I have outlined.

Could that also not be read as the preference of toneyb? If that is so, then he's not asking the right questions; rather, he might have been musing about ideas that tend to polarise towards his own idiosyncracies - and yet, he goes on to acknowledge that is "evidence" - but only in terms for vision and environment. This is what I meant in the previous paragraph: it is not an argument that there is "NO evidence" whatsoever; rather, it is about what type of "evidence" such a person is asking for.

True. I completely agree with your point but I believe the atheist might look at it differently.

Just in the same way as above for toneyb - here Tùdor narrows evidence for what could only be 'seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or experienced' - and he assumes that if he himself has not experienced the supernatural for himself, then no one else might have had that experience. If one provides an experience to him which the claimant has had, would that not be easy enough to reject out of hand simply because Tùdor has not had that experience for himself? Such an idea is narrow and a very queer way to assume 'evidence' for the reality of our world. At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.

After reading your second rejoinder I fully understand what you are saying and I also agree with it.

The "reasons" in themselves do not point to a lack o 'evidence'. What is supposed is that the atheist is looking for pointers to an affirmation of his naturalism, not because he's honest about thinking outside his own box. Any source today that an atheist may point to is also written by men - and in many other fields of enquries and worldviews, we find grounds for contradictions and disagreements. This situation does not point conclusively to a "lack of evidence", but rather a limp excuse to sit cozy in one's naturalistic worldview so that responsibility is shifted to the believer in supernaturalism.

Don't you think you are presupposing something here? There are very open minded atheist and I have meet a some of them. They are willing to go with anything that can convince them, infact I know atheist here that have never practiced or have never being exposed to any religion in their lives, their parents were atheist who did not expose them to any religion and they grew up with non beliefs, so I don't think it is right for you to say that some of them don't like thinking out of the box, There are a lot though who do not like thinking out of the box and are just happy to disbelieve anything and throw silly excuses at everything that has a supernatural claim without wanting to "test" it or examine it and see if it's true or not. Some have tried but dismiss the claim based on the lack of evidence I have been talking about.

Yes and no. It's alright to deny the "existence" of what does not square with one's worldview(s) - which is descriptive of what you just stated above. The atheist could deny the "existence" of God based purely on his own disagreement with the assertions or claims made by those who believe in God (which includes others besides Christians). That in itself does not mean therefore that the atheist is justified in denying the "existence" of God. I do not deny the "existence" of other gods or lords or the supernatural that are not within the subject of my worship and life of faith; but even though I acknowledge the possibility indeed of their "existence", it does not mean that I'm an adherent of such worldviews. For someone to therefore deny the "existence" of what he does not know beyond his own narrow experience is not an intelligent attitude to open-minded research into the reality of our world.

I agree with you here, so I will wait and see how the atheists here will respond to this.

Even so, they are still wrong. If an atheist comes to the conclusion that "men created ALL religions", he is making a positivist statement or claim - and he therefore has to 'prove' that every single religion in the world (including the claims of the supernatural) from the very history of man was indeed created by men! This would also mean, by extension, that he provides proof and evidence about his own conclusions about the supernatural, whether or not such a phenomena exists. If he says again that the supernatural does not exist, he would also have to show how he arrived conclusively at such a claim - using the same approach of his acclaimed idea of "science" to verify such observations. He cannot expect to make bland statements by "faith" and expect also by "faith" that such claims cannot be questioned, and then keep making excuses to shift responsibility to others for his own "faith-statements".

One(mazaje or toneyb) atheist here has made that point he said that, the theist does not have any evidence of any God revealing or creating any religion, then went ahead to say that all religions were created by men because men wrote all the religious text, choose what should be considered the word of God/gods, readacted the holy text, interprete the holy text and ascribe it to God/gods and also the continous change in the nature of God. This is the case that the atheist have made, they say the theist has no evidence to show that any God created any religion but he has his own evidence to show that men created religions. I might not agree with it but that is his position and the evidence he has been able to present.


I am already tired of speaking for the atheist so I will allow them to speak for themselves.

pilgrim.1:
Lol, is that not the very same thing people have observed about atheist discussions? Are you being objective at all?

However, I don't know if you're just teasing here or just saying this wishfully

It's true, but the Christians has to provide some evidence and present it to the atheist so that the atheist can disprove it, no Christian has done that so far on nairaland.

While I appreciate the sense you make here, I would seriously contest the highlighted part. Having read through some of the arguments of self-identified atheists on this Forum, it is obvious that their arguments is simply that there is no God - that includes ANY God or god. It does not matter whatever "evidence" one proffers, the atheist does not stand to say that he is not sure about the existence or lack of existence of any God/god(s) - he denies them entirely.

There are some militant atheist here on nairaland who forcefully declear that there is no God at all, there are others that declear that there is no God based only on the fact that no believer in God has ever provided any evidence to support his assertions that there is a God, toneyb said that when Christian tell atheist to look around them and see the "evidence" that is not evidence for him that is only evidence for vision and environment he said. Tudor on the other thread said "we'have never seen,heard,smelt,tasted or experienced him. We have not seen his works and no evidence whatsoever to confirm those attributed to him.
If indeed you have seen,heard tasted or felt god/allah, then PROVE IT TO US.simple ". While others deny the existence of all Gods without ever stating their reasons some have stated their reasons and the reason all boils down to the lack of evidence, Christians point to the bible and the atheist say that the bible was written by men and contains a lot of errors and contradictions.

However, only recently are we beginning to see a sort of redaction, or  more correctly a 'reductionist' position with atheism. As such, many atheists fancy flirting with the idea that "there probably is no God"; but at the bottom of it all, what they really are arguing is the denial of anything supernatural. An atheist who's quite informed does not have to narrow his arguments solely on Christian theism - which is why I often wonder why they rarely question the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in "gods", spirits, etc - whatever meaning may be given to such terms in those atheistic religions. I trust that the atheist is not simply one that does not believe in the Christian theistic worldview of "God"; but rather, he/she is someone who does not believe in ANY 'God/gods' or the supernatural - 'ANY gods', regardless whatever religion espouses them.

True, I agree with this completely.

On the other hand, we know that not all atheists make a hard claim of the denial of any deity or the supernatural - some tend to be self-identified as "agnostic-atheist", and we can allow them have their say as best defines their own worldviews. However, for purposes of discussing on Nairaland, we know that the one thing many atheists argue is funnelled down to just one thing: the denial of the existence of any 'God/god' and the supernatural.

I also agree with this, I think and (I might be wrong though) that they deny the existence of God/gods based purely on the assertions made by those who believe in God and the evidence or lack of evidence we have put forward. They do not say that there is no God because they know that there is no God, they deny the God hypothesis (a word that is mostly used by atheist) based on the unconvincing evidence that is presented to them. So they conclude that men created all religions.

noetic2:
Whats the meaning of all this?. . . . .I did not ask for an opinion. . . .all u were required to do was to answer the questions in RED. . . .is that a problem?

You ask questions that you have no answers for and you talk about objectivity?

noetic2:
For the sake of objectivity, clarity and intellectual emphasis, I asked myself: Why exactly am I not an atheist?

Here are the reason's I came up with . . .

I am not an atheist but let me try to reason as one and see if I can address some of the issues you raised from their own perspective.

1. An Atheist cannot substantiate his belief/disbelief:

An theist wonders why a religious belief should be based on faith, salvation and hope alone? A christian's claim of an experience/encounters with the Holy spirit, breakthroughs and miracles are not acceptable for verifiable and scientific reasons. , . . , , anyway this thread is not about christian beliefs.

The theist can also not substantiate his beliefs, the theist believes relies only on faith and we know faith in to God to be a belief that is not based on proof. The atheist does not believe in the God the theist tells him about , They do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here) but they say that the evidence we the theist provided for them as evidence for the existence of God is not evidence that is credible so they reject our evidence or lack of evidence and deny the existence of the God we talk about(The Christian God in this case) since we can not provided credible evidence to them.

The atheist reckons that all beliefs should be explicable scientifically, intellectually and logically. According to the atheist the christians cannot do this. But I find it difficult to reconcile an atheist's beliefs to proof or evidence.

Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence.

So let us put the atheist belief under the same microscope:
what is the scientific, intellectual or logical evidence for the non-existence of GOD?
what is the intellectual, rational or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?

The atheist yells: "The burden of proof is on the theist". . . .absolute RUBBISH. Any one who propagates an idea or belief/disbelief has the burden of proof. If u believe God does not exist, . . . . .simply prove it.

Over and over again as evidenced on this forum, atheists have refused to bring up this "evidence" of theirs that establishes the non-existence of GOD. It is as such safe to state that atheism is based on FAITH. faith and hope that GOD does not exist. because whatever assertion u cannot prove is a belief based on assumptions fuelled by . . . .

Atheism is as "guilty" as the religion it antagonises because it relies on FAITH.

The theist who says there is a God is yet to provide any scientific, logical and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, how then do you expect the atheist to do that which you have been unable to do? When you as the theist provide a scientific, intellectual and logical evidence for the existence of God only then can you tell the atheist to disprove the scientific,logical and intellectual evidence for God that you have provided, since you are unable to provided any how do you expect the atheist to provide evidence to disprove what you have not provided evidence for?

2. Atheism Connotes Ignorance:

To discuss/debate a subject you need a basic understanding of that subject. To debate evolution, mathematics or politics, one must at least have an understanding of the subjects involved. It is from this understanding that beliefs and ideologies are created.

Take for instance I have a complete understanding of the ontological and implicit nature of obatala, orunmila and ifa (yoruba local gods) which explains my disbelief in these minute gods. I do not subscribe to their potency, relevance or reverence. In other words a belief/lack of belief/ideology is a product of comprehensive understanding.

An atheist believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD. So can the atheist demonstrate an understanding of the subject involved in this belief/disbelief.

I want you to prove that all the yoruba Gods do not exist at all. The atheist simply says he does not believe.(Most nairaland atheist are different though, they are more interested in mocking and confrontations)

Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? (ur ontological definition must meet the meta-physical requirements of the atheist community, otherwise it is unacceptable to nairaland christians)

You have to present the said ontology of Jehovah so that the atheist can examine it and know if it is worth believing or not.

3. The inconsistencies of the atheist's Evolution:

Evolution is used to lend credence to atheism, to buttress the belief that there is no GOD. Evolution is the platform that attempts to rubbish the creation story as recorded in Genesis. Evolution mixes LIES with facts. I will not emphasise on these "facts" (but let me state here that changes in the earth (and man) from the "primordial" man (to this age) can NEVER be used to propagate the evolution LIE)

Perhaps if evolution/evolutionists/atheists can answer these pertinent questions. . . . .then I might believe afterall.

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.Whats the atheist's explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

I await these answers with deep breadth . . , What if there are NO answers to these questions, does that make evolution and subsequently atheism false? YES, . . .a definite YES

Is this a rant about Evolution or are you presenting your case against atheism? I know more Christians that believe in evolution than atheist. Its difficult to find scientist that are Christians over here but most of the Christian scientist I see around all believe in evolution, they do not believe in creationism. There are a lot of Christians scientist in the USA that believe in evolution too. So it is not only atheist that believe in evolution.

4. Atheism Denotes Ignorance and jejune postulations:
What are the norms of debating? Simply pick holes in the argument of the opposing view and offer acceptable alternatives. I have asked several atheists the basis for stating that there is no GOD, the answer has been unanimous. . . .NONE.

I have seen them provided their reasons unless if you do not consider them to be reasons at all, I have seen atheist here say that they do not believe because the Christian has no evidence of God giving any moral law or commandment all what we the Christians have are words written in a book that were written by men, put together by men through a vote and interpreted by men. That is a case for atheism that some atheist have provided. The atheist works with what the theist has provided and came to the conclusion that it is false. Some atheist here have looked at the ontology of the Christian God and have come to the conclusion that he does not exist based on such ontology, Here is one from Mazaje.

[b]the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible[/b].

An atheist claims that God did not create the earth and its components, . .who did? how? when? where?

Some atheist have been able to create alternative explanations like the big bang theory. That is debatable but that does not mean that they haven't provided alternate explanations.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "i know 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, even though I dont know the answer".
For u to know that 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, it means u have a knowledge of mathematics. . . . . use that knowledge to work out the real answer.

You don't have to provide the answer to 234566776*6554858746363 as long as you know it is not 5, the burdern of prove rest on the person that says it is 5. There are simply and complex maths 5*5 is a simple maths but 53647473636363*6363748489484/6737383893983 is a very complex mathematics.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "I cannot prove the non-existence of God but can only pick holes in biblical assertions of the bible GOD"
For you to establish the "inconsistencies" of the bible, u must be able to offer concrete and intellectually acceptable alternatives. otherwise u are ranting.

Is it also acceptable for the theist to say that he cannot prove the existence of God? The atheist can not prove the existence or non existence of any God but he can go through the evidence that is given by the Christian to see if the Christians assertions are true, the Christian presents the bible as the words of a perfect God that is all knowing, all loving, all powerful and all mighty who created the universe. But the atheist takes a look at the bible and sees a lot of contradictions, a lot of inconsistency in the bible and on the part of God, a lot of historical and scientific errors, A lot of merciless and sometimes wicked acts that were carried out by God directly or indirectly, some little editing and very different translations and mixed up messages that result for the different translations and concludes that this is not the word of a perfect God who is all knowing, all loving, who created the universe because if it is, it will not contain any errors or contradictions, merciless or wicked acts from God who is said to be merciful and loving. A perfect God the atheist believes will not allow inperfectnion into his holy book. The atheist also say that the bible was written by men not God.

The inability of the atheist community on nairaland/world to answer these basic pertinent questions is the basis of being regarded as "beclouded" critics.Critics who condemn (not on any intellectual or scientific basis) and yet have no alternative. This is despicable IGNORANCE that should not be transmitted to the next generation.

The Christians here have neither been able to answer any the questions they are throwing at the atheist, every body is just throwing mud all over the place. No body has been able to answer anything.

5. Whats There to loose?

An atheist claims there is no God, as such no eternity. When I die as a christian and then find out that there is indeed no GOD. , .what do i loose?. . . . .Absolutely NOTHING.

Whats there to loose if I DIE an atheist. . . .and then find out that there is a JEHOVAH GOD?
bear in mind that repentance is impossible in the grave. I will become a partaker in the torments of HELL which the bible describes in sordid details.

When you make such an assertion I believe you are asking for more questions than answering because the atheist will then ask you to prove or provided evidence that there is life after death. You will then point to the bible but the atheist will disregard it and say that the bible is not to be believed because it has a lot of errors and contradictions in it.

Atheism is a loose-loose situation , . . .

Atheist do not believe that their situation is a loose-loose. If they do i believe they will be theist so that they can be safe in case it doesn't turn out their way.

6. Any plus for atheism?

I have no SINGLE reason, not even half a reason to be an atheist.
This is what noetic-nairaland had to say about atheism.
noetic: atheism is an irrational state of mind, where the subject of one's disbelief cannot be substantiated.

This is butressed by the fact that atheistic belief/disbelief has

No scientific evidence.
No intellectual driven reason.
No logical and coherent explanation.
No sensible alternative to the christian GOD postulations. and several more. . . . I have no reason to be an atheist.:

Disbelief does not need to have scientific evidence. You as a Christian has not been able to provided scientific evidence for your own beliefs, how then do you expect the atheist to provided scientific evidence for his own disbeliefs? They atheist have provided a lot of intellectual driven reasons for their disbeliefs and I have provided some of them here. They have also provided very logical and coherent explanations for their disbelief. They also have provided sensible alternative to the Christian postulations. The fact that you do not agree with them does not mean that they haven't provided them.

I personally believe that a person can be born gay, I have come across a lot of gay people here in Europe and I believe them when they say that they did not chose their sexuality. This behaviour even exist naturally in animals and has been very well documented it has been proven scietifically that it is not a mental illness.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
link

davidylan:
What an immature nuisance. the first one was from wikipedia and i DULY NOTED THAT. That is why the first word reads thus - [size=18pt]Wikipedia[/size]

I wasnt "copying" from wikipedia, i[b] simply did what i have now become accustomed to doing, running posts from empty headed blowhards like you through software that automatically fetches the websites you are plagiarizing from.[/b] turns out mazaje's alleged claim on polystrate fossils is suspiciously too similar to one used on wikipedia which of course had no source.

The source on Prof Rupke did not come from wikipedia, that is common knowledge dude . . . we are not all brain dead like you fools. I thought mazaje would know . . . afterall he claimed to be a "geologist".

Why are you always trying so hard, I thought the same mazaje once exposed you for plagiarizing word for word on another Christian websites? Are you saying that you alone has the monopoly of plagiarism? You were so discredited on that thread because what you plagiarized did not even agree with all the things you had earlier stated and made you look very cheap.

Endless battles  , I am not a geologist I will only provide answers based on what I have read from both presentations, and Noetic can provide counter arguments. I am here to learn not throw insults.

noetic2:
Are u serious at all? The highlighted part makes a bold claim without stating facts to buttress this claim.

1. What is the proof that this fossils were not transported by the flood?

Talk origin says that because "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil). One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam. The "transported floating upright stumps" model is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

2. whats the proof that the fossils grew in their present location?

[b]"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position." individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur[/b]

3. If they did not grow in their current location (2 above), how did they get to their present location?

Geologists believe episodic local floods are quite up to the task of rapid burial, “in situ trees.” In situ forests have been buried and sub-fossilized in historic times! Talk origin also states that conventional geologist do not interpret the occurrence the simple way you stated it.

mazaje:
men created all the gods in their own image and all religions were created out of the fear of the many and the cleverness of a few . . . . . . if we later discover that intelligent life exist somewhere else in our universe, did jesus die for those peoples sins too? did allah send mohammed as his last messenger to them too? i hope that life will be discovered elsewhere in our universe during my lifetime. . . . ,  If it happens, i predict it will shatter religious that are taught all over the world. there also is a very good chance that if life is found somewhere else, the major governments will try to cover it up for that very reason. religious people may go totally nuts and begin to kill and destroy things all over the place.

Until science has been able to explain everything to us, I believe that there is still the need for science and God to co-exist. If science later explains everything then of course people will have the chance to examine and reconsider, The supernatural claim is still a very valid and legitimate claim I believe. If intelligent life is later discovered in some part of our universe then that will be it all religions will die a natural death.

@ Davidylan

I will be travelling soon so let make my final input. The Bible dissuades people from obtaining worldly knowledge by telling them to keep their thoughts on heaven and not earth. It's hard to be wise about this world while oblivious to it. No? As I aforementioned  The book of Colossians urges people to direct their thoughts out into heaven (which may explain a lot of Christian philosophy). It tells Christians to "aspire to the realm above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God, and let your thoughts dwell on that higher realm, not on this earthly life." Does this passage sounds as a passage that encourages knowledge of how the world functions and how to make the world a better place since it says that people should let their thoughts dwell on the higher realm? I don't think so. This implies that there's little point in studying the world, anyway, because it belongs to Satan and will soon be destroyed and replaced by another. The bible in so many places says that pursuing knowledge of this world brings misery. People's main focus(thoughts) should be on heaven and not earth. That is what the bible says.

davidylan:
I dont think so. I think you're reading your own pre-concieved ideas into the bible no matter how loudly your proclaim the opposite . . .

An apparent contradiction here is that you say the new testament is scornful of human knowledge . . . but used quotes from the old testament to accentuate that fact . . . odd. Methinks you're the one trying way too hard.

You quoted  from the passages i presented from the new testament didn't you? Why are you trying so hard?

1. Here is how the bible starts to define Daniel and his peers - Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Wow . . . shldnt God have been disdainful of Daniel for "understanding science" as you claim?

So how has this provided any support to your claim that the bible actively supports knowledge. The bible says that human wisdom deserves only to be destroyed and denigrated. God will "destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the cleverness of the clever." The bible does not support the idea that people should depend on the works and knowledge of other men unless if you want to keep lying all the time which you are very well known for. Because human reasoning is so inferior to the Almighty's thoughts, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." In fact, "It is plain stupidity to trust in one's own wits."This is so true that "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. . . ."

2. 1 Chonicles 12:32 And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.

Why were these men important to David if the bible so hated knowledge?

How has the passage that you have posted above explain anything? how does it negate the fact that the bible does not really support the idea of people wanting to know more about how the universe functions? God created the universe and the bible says that he doesn't want people to know how it functions. In describing the vast superiority of divine thinking over human thinking, the Lord proclaims that "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. . . . For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." That being the case, people cannot expect to understand God's methods. As a result, the Old Testament commands people to "Put all your trust in the Lord and do not rely on your own understanding." These teachings are intended to have people shut down their reasoning powers and blindly follow religious dogma.

Now lets look at the new testament . . .

3. Did the new testament simply disdain human knowledge?

1 Corinthians 3: 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men.

while verse 18-20 might seem so, i'm more interested in what verse 21 has to say. It seems here that what Paul was trying to say was NOT that we shld refuse to be wise, refuse to learn . . . but that in all our learning and wisdom we shld NOT give in to the temptation to ascribe the glory to ourselves.

Now the bible talks about money being the root of all evil . . . does that mean the bible disdained money? I think not!

The Bible says that human wisdom produces misery, disappointment, and emptiness. I said that The writer of Ecclesiastes states that he applied himself to know wisdom. But he "came to see that this useless  and it is just like chasing the wind. He went on to say that "So I said to myself, 'I too shall suffer the fate of the fool. To what purpose have I been wise? What is the profit of it? Even this,' I said to myself, 'is emptiness.' The wise man is remembered no longer than the fool, for, as the passing days multiply, all will be forgotten. By depicting the results of wisdom in such negative terms, the Bible does not promote good study habits such as research and the knowledge of how things function as you will like people to believe.

davidylan:
All this can be summed up in a single sentence - you simply do not understand my side of the story but are simply writing out of a pre-concieved anti-me bias based on earlier interaction on previous posts.

No I am not writing based on any pre-conceived anti you bias. I was just trying to understand how you came to the conclusions that science does not explain all your queries when it was only through the knowledge of science that you got to know about them not through your reading on the bible.

I said this on another post and will repeat it here - rather than science being an indictment against the bible, it has actually turned out to be an important tool in understanding how amazing God really is. Is the bible a science textbook? No. and i have never intimated so.
Is science bad? No! If not i wouldnt be a scientist myself.

Science is an indictment against the bible  because scientist have been able to prove some of the bible assertion to be false. Does that mean we should all throw away our bibles? NO but when you keep saying that science supports the bible then you should also expect them to ask you questions as to how science supports the assertions of the bible. The fact that through science we came to have the knowledge that the human eye looks intricately designed does not mean that science supports the bible, if you say that because the human eyes are intricately designed then that means that it supports the bible then you should be able to provide answers to them when they ask you how it does. The complexity of the universe and how it is governed by its laws does not prove the bible. If you say that the science behind the complexity of the universe proves that the bible is true then you should be able to explain it and show how it can be supported by the scientific evidence. You believe that God did it so do I, but to go into any other details is to go off course because the bible does not talk about how the earth and the universe functions. It only says that God created them.

The bible actively promoted learning, one of the early disciples (Luke) was a greek doctor, obviously he wasnt practicing his trade by reading the teachings of Christ alone! Simon was a fisherman, a trade that required at least a rudimentary knowledge of oceanography . . . did that stop him from being one of the leaders of the early church? No.

That is why I keep saying that you are fighting so hard. The bible does not actively promote learning and knowledge.The Old Testament says that people's reasoning abilities are unreliable and deceptive. It warns "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." This pathway to ruin results, at least partly, from the fact that the "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.In describing the vast superiority of divine thinking over human thinking, the Lord proclaims that "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. . . . For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."That being the case, people cannot expect to understand God's methods. The New Testament is very scornful of human knowledge. It views this world's wisdom as stupid and worthless:

"If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. . . . The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."

Because the wise in this world cannot apprehend the ways of God, only those having a childlike mentality should find Christian teachings attractive according to the bible. Jesus said,

"Let the children come to me . . . for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." And he prayed, "I thank thee, O Father, . . . because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

The writer of Ecclesiastes states that he applied himself to know wisdom. But he "came to see that this is chasing the wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and the more a man knows, the more he has to suffer." Moreover, his learning turned out to be pointless:

"So I said to myself, 'I too shall suffer the fate of the fool. To what purpose have I been wise? What is the profit of it? Even this,' I said to myself, 'is emptiness.' The wise man is remembered no longer than the fool, for, as the passing days multiply, all will be forgotten. . . ."

The book of Colossians urges people to direct their thoughts far out into the heavens.  It tells Christians to "aspire to the realm above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God, and let your thoughts dwell on that higher realm, not on this earthly life.". I don't know that Luke is a doctor but to say that the bible actively encourages scientific reasoning and research is false.

davidylan:
So the problem here is NOT science . . . you seem to have the idea that i'm saying science is bad and we shld simply hug the bible . . . that is far far from the truth. [/b]The bible was not written by a bunch of learned scientists so obviously there was a lot they didnt know about the world around us, no one expects to go read the bible to understand the principles of physics . . . infact Genesis simply says "let there be light" . . . we are not told the speed of that light, anything about how it is reflected, nothing on its physical properties . . . we simply know that "and there was light".

Another point in your diatribe that caught my attention was this - [b]You don't have to disprove science and the tremendous knowledge of the world it has helped us acquired because you want to prove the biblical assertions that we all believe through faith.

where in any of my earlier posts was i trying to "disprove science"?   I am a scientist-in-training, why would i want to disprove my own profession? Does that make a shred of sense?

My point was simple - science has taught us a ton . . . but is it the answer to the most critical questions about how the earth appeared, why we could not have simply appeared by chance or "evolved" from simple organisms? Apparently NO!
Science has its limits . . . it is just sad that many who dont even understand the basic principles of science try to use it as a cloak to justify their unbelief.

It is one-thing to doubt the bible, i have no problems with that . . . but to use UNVERIFIED, UNSUBSTANTIATED scientific theories to debunk the theory of creation is pretty absurd.

It would be a cold day in hell the moment many of you start commenting on topics free of bias and without coming here with a chip on your shoulders.

Science has its limits but my problem with your post was that you were using the knowledg how the hypothalamus functions which you acquired only through science to say that science does not explain it.

davidylan:
Whence did these sons of belial start using science to camouflage their own ignorance? Exactly what science is toneyb talking about?

What does he know about science? How has science explained the miracle of the sun, moon, stars and earth? How has science explained how chance could have so intricately designed the eye with its complex ability to focus to objects of varying distance at the speed of light?

I like your tenacity I must confess but you are always trying too hard. It is good to defend the the bible and what it asserts, but when you leave the spiritual teachings and assertion that the bible makes and begin to engage in other fields like science then you are doing the bible a great disservice because the bible is not a science text book, but a book of faith and spirituality. The very little physics that is contained in the bible is very contrary to the conventional physics that we know. To you as a believer the sun is a miracle but to the scientist it is not that is why the scientist spends most of his/her time trying to know much about it and through the painstaking research of the scientist we got to know that the bible has it wrong when it says that the sun moves from place to place. Through science we know what the components of the eyes are and how images are formed in the eyes, we know how to cure eye defects and correct them. The bible I am sorry to say has no explanation for all these things. What are the biblical explanation for how the eye functions? You know that the eye focus objects of varying distance at the speed of light through science not through your knowledge of the bible. What are the biblical explanation for all these? Does the book of genesis talk about how the eye functions? Does it talks about the science behind the formation of image on the retina?

How has science explained how chance could have given us a brain that allows me to type on my keyboard without making an ounce of effort to lift my fingers? how does science explain how a tiny organ like the hypothalamus could control almost all my involuntary activities?

You know this because science has explained it in great details what are the biblical explanations for all these? you wouldn't have known how the brain functions if you were left with the bible alone. You just described what science says about the hypothalamus and still say that how does science explain it? Did you get to know that the hypothalamus controls involuntary actions by reading the book of Genesis? If we were left with the bible alone we wouldn't have known what the hypothalamus is and how it functions.

Has the fool ever wondered how you can lift a leg simply by thinking about it? Does this fool ever wonder why the sun didnt fall out of the sky just by chance or the moon failed to show up for an entire yr because it got stuck on another planet?

Does the bible provided an answer to any of the questions you asked above? Does the bible really know how the sun operates? The bible talks about the sun moving from place to place but science has shown that the biblical assertion is false. If we were to go by the biblical assertion that God did it we wouldn't have known that the sun does not move from place to place.

How has the planet survived for billions of yrs and essentially remained the same BY CHANCE? How did chance engineer homologous genes in yeast and as well in man? How can we knock out a gene and then put it back into a cell and have it function just as normally? why did chance give us 2 eyes, ears, and nostrils ALL PERFECTLY DESIGNED IN THE EXACT SAME WAY? How did chance give us the power to walk on two feet but denied that right to the cow?

I don't now if scientist say it all happened by chance, but we all came to know about the cells, genes and how they function though our knowledge of science not through the bible. What are the biblical explanations for any of this? You don't have to disprove science and the tremendous knowledge of the world it has helped us acquired because you want to prove the biblical assertions that we all believe through faith. The bible does not provide explanation for any of the things you have stated and I also find it funny that you use scientific explanations and the knowledge you have acquired through science to say that science does not explain your queries.  What are the biblical explanations for them? You don't have to be fighting so hard to disprove what the bible has no answers for. The entire Christian belief all boils down to faith, It does not provide explanation for anything at all with regards to how the earth and the universe functions. It only asserts that God created it.

Do these fools who love to trumpet the goodness of science (even though they probably only managed a D in their science classes) understand what they are talking about?

I as a Christian can see that It is you who clearly does not know what you are talking about.

This is an interesting debate i must say, you guys should try and have a civil debate without name calling please.

The fiery Mazaje is here again   , Mazaje this is not the religious section pls. i understand what you are trying to say but enough of the religious war.

@ osisi enough of some of your meaningless attacks on islam, i do not agree with mazaje but at least he has shown you how stupid and ridiculous your assertions are. you say allah says that men should beat their women lightly, but the same bible says that men are created in the image of God but women in the glory of men. The same bible tells you that women are to keep quite and not to usurp the power of men and be quite and never to speak in front of men in the church. the same bible says that the hands of women should be cut off when they go to save their husbands from attackers. When God was placing monetary values on people He placed far more value on men than women. So enough of your shenanigans.

I used to be a Catholic but I now attend a Baptist Church. I some times attend KICC.