₦airaland Forum

Most times i pity the religious....the veil of pride in their religions and "gods" do not allow them to question themselves and research on knowing if anything they believe is true or not.....
I also pity myself because of the mental capacity i would have achieved if i wasn't indoctrinated...
Heck i pity the whole human race for giving in to superstitions....if we never did...who knows?....i might have been on the moon now

ba7man: Eg. The Big Bang theory.

Science tells us "HOW": A reaction of certain molecules reacted to result in the the "big bang" explosion that started the chain reaction leading to the creation of the universe, earth and life.

Religion tells us "WHY" : God is the force behind the molecules reacting to create life.

Eg: Day and night.

Science says; The earth completes a rotation in 24hrs resulting in Day and night due to exposure to the sun.

Religion; A caring God created night and day to provide man a period to rest from his toils. God even turned out the lights so that man could sleep better.

But due to his infinite wisdom, he left a bedside lamp(The moon), just incase man still needed to move about at night.

I have tons of more explanations......Philosophy is still man's creation.....now who created that man??

Mister if you have no understanding of the big bang theory then please keep mute...because some of us dedicate our lives to understand this mysterious universe and spend countless sleepness nights revising and re-proving the established theoretical and mathematical models of fellow peers...
The big bang is not an "Explosion of chemicals" infact the word "bang" hitched on to the inflation theory was what steady-state theorists used to ridicule the theory and till this day it has become attached to that name....
You see the "big bang" theory is mainly mathematics so no matter how much verbatum i use i doubt you would understand it...but i would still ofcourse try...
First one very important aspect for one unfamiliar with this theory to grasp is that space is a phenomenon that permits all physical constructs we see and relates it to a specific region in the universe relative to time....
That said...the inflation theory a.k.a "the big bang" is the creation of all the physical phenomenon you see today....a "before the big bang" question would be illogical because time also is a result of the inflation....also a "where the big bang" came from is also illogical because positions in a non-existent space to define regions do not tarry...
The only logical question is what the source material ejected from the singularity is and what state it was prior to the universe...again it's a big headache not defining positions and time....because that is what we live by... THANK YOU

malvisguy212: are you jehovah's witness? Do you not believe in the epistle?how about the gospel of christ I give you?


Most of you guys are christian but when you read stuff in the internet, you grow cold, they feed you lies about the bible,you know longer read the bible but chose to gather information about God on the internet, they give you lies and seducing doctrine, as always been the case, majority are always on the wrong side, during the flood only few people got save, soddom and gommorah, only few people got save and nowadays the same thing is happening, only few people know who jesus real is,a man born of the spirit of God, who will be his father?is it possible for a mortal man to walk the earth witout committing one sin? only GOD CAN.bible prophecy is coming to pass in our own very eyes but the sad things is that we are sleeping, don't terry lady, believe in jesus so that you will be among elect.
God breath on man and man became a living soul, but satan corrupt man, do you think God will live it like that ? Noting shall be left untouched, we only need jesus to adopt back the nature of Godliness in us.

why did "satan" get the free reign to "corrupt" man in the first place?.....and taking that everything goes according to "gods" plan...how is it(god) still "all-good?"...

Only in nigeria would a "scientist"..."debunk" homosexuality using magnets...i've always said reality must be bent to fit in with whatever religion a theist believed in...

i'm yet to see any "scientific evidence" other than people cramming one in vague verses...

You will get over 41,000 answers to this....because the same bible has led to over 41,000 denominations of "truths" over the same piece of rubbish mythology!...
Christianity is judaism 2.0
Islam is judaism 3.0
Retold stories....different fan-made versions...

"They" chose to disobey by eating of the evil tree "god" planted itself...."all-good" "god" gives the option of evil...what type of parent would i be if i left poison close to my toddlers' food and not take responsibility should he ingest it?

OLAADEGBU: Amen!

Olaadegbu...please define a fairy tale...

sadly,the ill-informed will believe this...

Elkewwty: Yes, they must swear or leave

whoa,are 40 dudes following you?

panachuku: there is athiesm. agnostic peeps and free thinkers. all i know d world was created by sumtin or sum1. but religion is a big scam

yes...the excretion disk of the sun....like all planets...

EMILO2STAY: explain how developing a new organ stops it from been a lizard, and why should developing new organs raise a flag when The examples that you and other evolutionists so proudly tout are examples of adaptation, there is no CONVINCING evidence for ANY transitional species anywhere not even in the Fossil record. In other words, evolution on a macro level is Not observed in science. It is however, still a theory often taught as fact. The coelacanth a supposedly 350million year old fish has not changed into somthing else but still remains a fish, this practicaly debunks evolution theory.

brah,adaptations is still under evolution....the most 'fit' organisms...i.e those that can adapt will pass those favourable traits to the next generation....and i honestly dunno why you equivocate philosophical 'theory' with the scientific one....
Scientific theories are made of facts....
As for your 'no convincing evidence'....first define what you understand a transitional species is.....
And as for the 'organ doesn't stop it from being a lizard' i agree with you...because all organisms that evolve are modified versions of what they evolved from....just because we speciated from ape-like creatures doesn't stop us from being classified as homonids along with other 'apes'...creatures that evolve don't become outcasts....if you are expecting monstrous chimera's from already complex beings then you will be in for a disappointment...

..

Enkay....First off keep trying to get a job...next about "god"....i don't know how to put this but....why do you think a "god" would give you a job in the first place?!...
The fact that you believe in "god" doesn't give you special priviledges otherwise praying would count as cheating in classes....just keep searching....although as an atheist i'd tell you to stay clear of belief in mythologies....eitherway keep searching for a job....i believe in you!.. What exactly are your credentials....focus on what gives you an edge for a particular job...

prettyboi1989: Nawa 4 una o, u guys are taking paracetamol for a dead man's headache, charles darwin dat brot the evolution theory who neva believed that there was God accepted God before he died, so watz d problem with d people supporting evolution? Na una create the theory ni?

Don't tell me the creationist deathbed story fooled you too!......go and get your "facts" checked!

[url] http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm#.VBJ-gkgXO1s [/url]

Even say for the sake of argument he did convert to christianity....does that change the validity of his theory,no...

If his theory is demonstrate-ably true then whatever his background or religion is doesn't matter....

Or using your analogy should we all believe in alchemy because newton did?

EMILO2STAY: this has not proved anything. According to evolution theory humans speciated from apes to become humans , This lizards should have speciated from a lizard to aligator or somthing totaly different.

lol.....wait did i just read this right....lizard speciate to an aligator
First off...developing entirely new organs didn't raise a flag for you that the lizard specie just became something different from its predecessors
wow!...this is a whole new level of denial...
And the development of new organs isn't the end of evolution on those lizard specie...if you would have actually read any of liekiller' propositions you would have understood that such a change that is beneficial would be enforced through several generations if permitted by natural conditions i.e the island....
Please again explain to me why you keep thinking it has to become something already existing?....
oh and point of correction....populations of an organism evolve,not single organisms...

EMILO2STAY: this has not proved anything. According to evolution theory humans speciated from apes to become humans , This lizards should have speciated from a lizard to aligator or somthing totaly different.

lol.....

EMILO2STAY: there are several people in the amazon jungle who have lost contact with civilation and according to ur evolution theory this people should have evolved to somthing more like an ape cuz of the need to adapt to their environment.
As for the eve case; Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos.
so as u can see adam had several sons and daugthers laters and seth would have taken his wife from their offring.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but that's still in-breeding...and harmful mutations are highly likely from such....why is because variance cannot occur and since haploids aren't even perfect copies of parents' in the first place...basic functional activities of the cell are from the genes are either missing or develop in the wrong way....i.e four eyes,no head etc...

EMILO2STAY: my dear this has proved nothing now!, the lizard only changed in colour pattarn and size but still remains a lizard,it did not evolve into an aligator or a python.

why do you think evolution involves a species jumping several taxonomic levels to become another different existing specie??.... at best what happens is the myriad uses of it's present structures...until they become more specialized...
If you had read the article i brought up you would have encountered the case where other lizards had become so specialized in diet after being introduced to an environment that favoured more vegetation that entirely new organs were developed

"Lizards of the species Podarcis sicula from a nearby island were introduced by scientists to a new island previously uninhabited by scientists in 1971. Since then, several evolutionary changes have occurred. This included the formation of completely new organs in the lizards known as cecal valves, which helped the lizards digest their new strictly plant diet. To the left is a photograph of the cecal valve in a male specimen."

[url] http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation [/url]

EMILO2STAY: my dear this has proved nothing now!, the lizard only changed in colour pattarn and size but still remains a lizard,it did not evolve into an aligator or a python.

why would a lizard evolve into an already present genetic heirachy?!
And i posted that link for you to read up on...doubtfully you didn't...that goes to show you have a presupposition about it of not being true....if you did bother to read it you would have read about the observed development of entirely new organs(new to that particular specie)

"Lizards of the species Podarcis sicula from a nearby island were introduced by scientists to a new island previously uninhabited by scientists in 1971. Since then, several evolutionary changes have occurred. This included the formation of completely new organs in the lizards known as cecal valves, which helped the lizards digest their new strictly plant diet. To the left is a photograph of the cecal valve in a male specimen."

EMILO2STAY: hahaha....is this what u want to use and confuse me?, Show a proof of a particular population of living organisms that was studied from the point of speciation due to adaptation to the point where they are unable to interbreed with their parent population.

Quite the contrary i dislike dishonesty....here is the study you asked for,i will even post a commentary from the source

"An excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, the lizards each adapted to their respective environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards each changed body shape in response to the flora in their environment. In fact, scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. Scientists estimate that this change was on the order of 200 darwins, which are measured units of evolutionary change. In comparison, the average rate observed in the fossil record is only 0.6 darwins." from
[url] http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation [/url]

And also you'd like to read up here to understand speciation in sexually active populations
For organisms that reproduce sexually, speciation begins when parts of a population evolve differences from one another. Eventually, the two parts of the population may evolve so many differences that they can no longer interbreed. This can happen in many different ways — through shifts in mate availability, mate choice, or simply the organisms' ability to mate successfully with one another. Now, two groups of researchers have shown exactly how these mating differences, the first steps in speciation, can evolve in bird populations in less than 50 years.

[url] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation [/url]

Willing to bash peoples brains in and kill babies for "god"... your fabled idols in the bible did,would you?

And they'll say, "when has religion ever forced you to do anything?" ...forgetting that the most part of human history was filled with religious zealots willing to kill and bash peoples heads' in for apostacy...

EMILO2STAY: An individual belonging to a group of organisms having common characteristics and are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring.

Good....now when a population of a species' cannot breed with the parent population successfully anymore but amongst themselves what do you call that....?

EMILO2STAY: define speciation?

The emergence of a new species....what do you understand is a species?

EMILO2STAY: the process of changing an organism's appearance through a series of small changes is correcty called “microevolution” and that is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of
evolution” on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color due to environmental factors, but it is still a frog, not a fish or a lizard.

let me ask you a question,what do you understand is a species?

nature sure is beautiful!....

OLAADEGBU: I commend you for painstakingly going through the videoclips posted and stating your views even if they are sincerely wrong. Have you heard of circumstantial evidence and how it can be used in courts?

The fact that Abraham Lincoln was born, became president, or was assassinated cannot be proven using scientific methods.  To be scientific it must be repeatable (as in the testing of gravity).  The proofs that Lincoln did exist and was a historical figure are:

1. the written evidence,
2. eyewitness testimony,
3. physical evidence that remains to this day at the Ford Theatre, birth records and newspaper articles regarding his election.

All these facts are acceptable in a court of law as proof to a judge and jury.

Garry T. Ansdell (D.D.) made a case out of this when he stated that "The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential:

1. the empty tomb still exists,
2. His birth record is documented all the way back to Adam and Eve,
3. the four Gospels record His death;
4. the location, even the names of the political leaders who sentenced Him are historically recorded;
5. there were more than five hundred eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection, recorded by the New Testament writers;
6. the very existence of the Christian faith, based on His death and resurrection;
7. the cultural and political evidence at the time, including the Roman calender separating all of time into Before Christ (B.C.) and in the year of our Lord (A.D.)."

That is why the Bible is the most trustworthy historical document from the most trust-worthy eye-witness.

No olaadegbu...science is not confined to repeat-able testing for confirmation of history...objects can be dated and back-tracked for their point of origin..that said i will easily break down your 7 evidences....and i will like for you to point out the mistakes or factual errors debunking all your statements because i've discussed the basic deceptions that have been employed on all video's and yet you've refused to acknowledge any of it...mere shrugs at the rebuttals is all you've done so far
THE EMPTY TOMB EXISTS
The existence of an empty tomb is not evidence of "jesus" existence....why? [b] we must therefore consider all the explanations for it being empty. The possible explanations are 1) Jesus didn’t die on the cross. Having survived, he escaped from the tomb, 2) Thieves stole Jesus’ body, 3) Jesus’ disciplines came and stole his body, 4) Jesus rose from the dead, moved the stone, made the guard go to sleep, etc. as the Gospels describe.



Christians argue that the 1st explanation is ruled out because a) medically speaking, the wounds Jesus was inflicted with were too brutal for anyone with a human body to have survived, b) Jesus was pierced in the side by a spear from a Roman guard, which would have caused too much damage and loss of blood for him to have survived, c) Even if Jesus was still alive after the crucifixion, he would have been too weak to have moved the huge stone that covered the entrance to his tomb, nevertheless get past the Roman guard on post to protect the tomb from robbers.



They consider the 2nd and 3rd explanations to also be ruled out, because a) the Roman guard stationed at the tomb to protect it from robbers would not have fallen asleep because in those days, they would be executed for such a failure, and b) it would take too much force to move the large stone covering the tomb entrance anyway.



Therefore, they conclude that the 4th explanation is the only possible one, that Jesus rose from the dead, used his divine powers to roll back the stone and cause the guard to go to sleep, and appeared to his disciples. How convenient.



The problem with all this, again, is that it assumes that the events described in the Gospels are historical facts. Any unbiased historian will tell you that the Gospels were written with an agenda to preach the good news to people in order to convert the masses. Therefore, we have zero evidence that any of the events surround the Resurrection even took place as described.



In fact, I could use the same arguments above in a similar manner to attempt to prove certain things about Superman as well.



Christian Argument # 1:

Jesus was born of a virgin. Therefore he must have been divine, because no ordinary human could have been born of a virgin.



Likewise



Superman Argument # 1:

As a baby, Superman was sent to Earth in a meteor shaped rocket ship. Nothing of this world could have designed a ship like that that could travel for so many light years. Therefore, he must have truly been of extraterrestrial origin!



Christian Argument # 2:

During Jesus' ministry, he performed supernatural miracles such as feeding the three thousand, healing the sick, and walking over water. These miracles can only be done by someone divine.



Likewise



Superman Argument # 2:

During Superman's life, he can go faster than a speeding bullet, is more powerful than a locomotive, and leap over tall buildings in a single bound. These superhuman feats can only be done by someone from out of this world!



Christian Argument # 3:

The people around Jesus were witnesses to all the miracles and supernatural feats he did. There were also witnesses to his resurrection as well.



Likewise



Superman Argument # 3:

When Superman saves lives in Metropolis and around the world, there are usually plenty of witnesses and reporters who witness and capture on film his amazing rescues with his amazing powers. [/b]

BIRTH RECORD
The "birth record" you are talking about are letters and passages compiled and debated by the roman church on what the bible should include...popular opinion won the vote and unpopular mythologies and passages were rejected from your "birth record" even after being referenced by approved passages and they include;
The wars of the lord (Numbers 21:14)
The book of Statutes(1st Samuel 10:25)
The sayings of the seers(2nd Chronicles 33:19)
The Acts of Uzziah written by isaiah (2nd Chronicles 26:22)
The prophecies of enoch (jude 14)
An epistle to the Laodiceans ( Colossians 4:16)
etc
So are you referring to the compilation of hand-picked voted stories as a "birth record"? lol

THE FOUR GOSPELS RECORD DEATH
Already having debunked the bible as a historical document i will still digress on why four "gospels" hold nothing as historical evidence
The first three Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels and are regarded by Biblical scholars, both Christian and secular, to be older than John. (The dating of the Gospels is not known, and estimates vary among scholars, with Christian scholars posing earlier estimates than secular scholars, not surprisingly. Secular scholars tend to place the dating of the Gospels after 70 AD though. See Dating of the Synoptics) Mark is regarded as the oldest, followed by Matthew and Luke, then by John. Now the central theology doctrine of Christianity today teaches a salvation by faith through grace, by believing that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and rose from the grave. This doctrine is central and fundamental to the Christian Gospel. However, this form of salvation is NOT taught in Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are the oldest of the Gospels! The basis for the Christian Gospel of salvation by faith and the atonement comes from the book of John

In the Gospel of Matthew, there is NOT ONE WORD about having to believe on Jesus in order to go to heaven. In fact, there is not one word about having to "believe" in anything at all to get to heaven! There is no mention of the atonement or of salvation by faith. In fact, Jesus says that all you have to do for God to forgive your sins is this: [b]
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:" (Matthew 6:14)
Later in that Gospel, when someone asked Jesus directly what he had to do to be saved and have eternal life, Matthew clearly records a salvation by works:
matt. 19:16-21: "and, behold, one came and said unto him, good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? jesus said, thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
jesus in this account never said here that you have to believe that he died on the cross for your sins for God to forgive you! In the same Gospel of Matthew, Jesus also preached the famous beatitudes which emphasize that those with good hearts, attitudes and character will inherit the kingdom of god, which is another way of saying that they will go to heaven! [/b]


Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

That's it! He didn't say that you had to believe that jesus died for your sins in order for you to be forgiven. The verses that say that are in the book of john, which came about 50 years after Matthew.

Now take a look at the book of Mark. He doesn't mention that you have to believe in Jesus to be saved either, except for a verse in the last chapter of Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16). However, most scholars believe that that verse is an interpolation, or a forgery, since many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark do not contain that verse, and furthermore it does not fit into Mark since the rest of it doesn’t teach a salvation by faith. Therefore, mark probably never wrote anything about having to believe that jesus died for you, in a salvation by faith, or the atonement concept. The gospel of luke is also like matthew and mark in that it doesn't mention belief in the atonement or in salvation by faith either! Therefore, it is likely that the original jesus, if he existed, probably never preached such a doctrine either!

next comes the gospel of john, and we have verses that require you to "believe" in Jesus to be saved, such as:
john 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
john 3:18 “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
john 3:36 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
john 8:24 “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
john 11:25 “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:”

Now my question to you olaadegbu is how is it that matthew says nothing about "salvation
by faith," but simply says that God will be merciful to the
merciful, that he will forgive the forgiving, and says not one word
about the necessity of believing anything?

THE LOCATION AND POLITICAL LEADERS ARE ACCURATE

In any fictional tale a degree of certainty or facts are present....the facts that a place and political figures are accurate says nothing about the story....using your logic.... spiderman exists because his location New York,Manhattan also exists...

ONE WRITER RECORDS THAT 500 PEOPLE WERE PRESENT
That's basically it one writer recorded that an event had 500 witnesses to bolster credibility

THE EXISTENCE OF THE "CHRISTIAN FAITH"
wow because the christian faith exists..around the death of a fabled man therefore it is true...hmmm what about the other over 41,000 denominations with conflicting views that regard itself also as the chrisitan faith based on mainly the very same bible
we might as well also say that because people who believe the earth is flat exists therefore the earth is truly flat

THE ROMAN CALENDER
lol...this is as silly as you can get...do you know that rome and greece being influential began most of our fundamental cultures and understanding....an example is euclade geometry...........being influential does not count as evidence for existence of anything otherwise using your logic batman exists!.. or santa claus for always being remembered in a point of time lol....and can you please identify the eye-witness you claimed...his testimony and the scholar that approved of such as a historical document... (i'm pretty sure ken ham is one,lol )

OLAADEGBU: The subsequent videoclip corrected your wrong assertions that evolution equals science. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis not to talk of it being a scientific law. It is only an imaginative fairytale for adults. True science confirms the Bible.

did you bother to respond to my evisceration of the claimed video debunking evolution...or are you just going to ignore it as usual...oh and your second video debunked by me is above....you're welcome

davien: After watching your video i have seen as usual the tenants i have pointed out which i would identify here
MISREPRESENTATIONS
Merely 26 seconds into the video...evolution is defined as "life arising from non-life" and "molecules to man" accusations just 11 seconds after the first misrepresentation... and evolution isn't just a "things change" definition...it is defined as the gradual change of organisms through inheritance and allele frequency changes and distribution...
And at 45 seconds start the usual accusation that evolution isn't testable whereas i posted a link(if you had bothered to check of scientific experiments where evolution was observed and tested in the labouratory)
[url] http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html [/url]
Lizards of the species Podarcis sicula from a nearby island were introduced by scientists to a new island previously uninhabited by scientists in 1971. Since then, several evolutionary changes have occurred. The lizards now have larger heads and stronger bites. In addition, the population has evolved cecal valves, entirely new organs.
And by 1 minute the presenter claims no known evidence of genetic information being added to organisms'...hmmm lets see again...from phylointelligence.com
Evolution of novel genes and function in HIV
The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene
And the "life has not been observed to come from non-life" is vaguely arbituary.....what is life?...if not the conglumeration of elements,compounds and mixtures...are those not "non-life" that make-up life? and they even debunk their own mythology where "god" creates humans from sand... is sand not "non-life"?

OLAADEGBU: If anyone is misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misconstruing science at all it is you. Check out the nature of science in the videoclip below and discover what reals science is and how it confirms the accuracy of the Bible:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Z0PAqgjWo

MISREPRESENTATIONS
Pathetically again all what the presenter does is misrepresent everything he possible can.... barely 5 seconds he claims have you heard of an "explosion in space" ... misrepresenting the big bang,the big bang isn't even an "explosion" but got this popular description when steady state theorists tried to degrade it...it is the expansion of the universe from a point cosmologists understand to be a singularity..that-is to say space and everything of it were constructs manifested from such an event and were not already around it as misrepresented in the video
And again 22 seconds in there is the claim that their is a "huge difference between historical science and observational science" of which the presenter claims the history of the french tower is in the past...therefore can't be "repeated"
This straw-man is a usual creationist classic...you can't "Repeat the past" ...and already the presenter goes ahead to claim historical science require documents to sometimes verify it(i do not disagree with this),but then goes on to say "god was there to observe the creation of the earth therefore the bible is true" and then the voucher self-approves the bible as "trust-worthy" in all it teaches at 2 minutes 49 seconds in the video...how that is established the presenter doesn't say... and 4 seconds after claims secular scholars claim the bible records "accurate historical events" and then claims that the bible is the "most trustworthy historical document from the most trust-worthy eye-witness" and then claims that since the universe is logical and orderly therefore there should be a "logical creator" at 3 minutes and 12 seconds in the video...that "imposed order on his creation" and then claims it doesn't make sense atall if the universe is an accidental explosion ....note that the presenter values what makes sense to him in regards to his religion than what is verify-ably true and then claims "our minds are able to comprehend many things about the universe therefore a creator of the did it to explore the universe" and then claims yet again that it "doesn't make sense if our brains are by-products of chance" and then claims at the end that we can experiment on things based on thinking that "laws have remained the same...therefore a law-giver gave them"...
THERE IS SO MUCH TO DIVULGE HERE THAT I WOULD DIVIDE AND DISCUSS THEM ALL FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE
MY TAKE ON THE VIDEO;
Immediately the presenter tries to create a wedge between observation science and historical science by accusing historical science of being non-repeatable therefore cannot be told to be true on all points,therefore documents are required to validate history...why this is true(atleast that the past can't be verified 100%) i would try to explain why this wedge is nothing more than a goose-chase from the facts...
Now we are at the seen of a crime...
REPETITION OF THE PAST
a woman's throat was slit and we are trying to figure out what happened....we see a note that appears to be the womans hand-writing of suicide...now do we investigate further or close the case because we have a document that claims to be from an eye-witness...using the presenters' analogy we should take the note as it is and forget about investigating further....and then on the talk of not knowing if the laws of nature were the same in the past the investigators may just conclude that it can't be known if the woman didn't just meta-physically appear by "god" with a slit throat by the presenters analogy...
Forensic science today tries to piece together all the available data and information present at the scene of a crime to create the best possible explanations for occurences in the past and this has rewarded them greatly...
SECULAR SCHOLARS AGREE THE BIBLE IS TRUST-WORTHY
This is an extract from a scholar
[b] It is now evident that the selection of Abraham, with his close connection to Hebron, Judah's earliest royal city, and to Jerusalem . . . was meant also to emphasize the primacy of Judah even in the earliest eras of Israel's history. It is almost as if an American scripture describing pre-Columbian history placed inordinate attention on Manhattan Island or on the tract of land that would later become Washington, D.C. The pointed political meaning of the inclusion of such a detail in a larger narrative at least calls into question its historical credibility. — p. 43

The authors conclude that the patriarchal traditions

must be considered as a sort of pious "prehistory" of Israel in which Judah played a decisive role. They describe the very early history of the nation, delineate ethnic boundaries, emphasize that the Israelites were outsiders and not part of the indigenous population of Canaan, and embrace the traditions of both the north and the south, while ultimately stressing the superiority of Judah. — p. 45

Rather than a chronicle or history, evidence indicates that this part of Genesis was a national epic created in the seventh century BCE which successfully joined many regional legendary ancestors into one unified tradition.

A second series of biblical events revolves around the slavery of the Jewish people in Egypt, the miraculous escape of 600,000 led by Moses, their wandering in the wilderness for forty years, their swift conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the slaughter of all the original inhabitants. These events, memorialized in major Jewish festivals, occupy four of the first five books of the Bible traditionally attributed to Moses. Physical evidence and historical texts confirm that Canaanites had traditionally settled in the prosperous east delta region of Egypt, particularly in times of drought, famine, and war. Some came as landless conscripts and prisoners of war, others as farmers, herders, or tradesmen. Egyptian historians tell of the Hyksos, Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta. [/b] from [url] http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/52-02-3/xt-sbd2.htm [/url]
These are just a few notions i can write-up
ACCURATE HISTORICAL EVENTS
The bible as reviewed by history and chronology does not contain any accurate historical event...
When was Jesus born? According to Luke, it was during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius, during a census ordered by Augustus throughout the whole world.(9) According to both Luke and Matthew it was also during the reign of king Herod "the Great."(10) The problem is that Herod died in 4 B.C.E., and this was fully ten years before Quirinius' census. Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman census could have been held in his territory, which included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth.(11) Herod would have collected his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the existence of a census throughout the whole empire is contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes province by province, often subcontracting the process to "publicans." [url] http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm [/url]
[url] THE UNIVERSE IS LOGICAL,THEREFORE A LOGICAL CREATOR EXISTS [/url]
We might as well say sand is dusty...therefore a dusty sand maker exists...the universe being "logical" has nothing to do with "god/gods" but with our ability to represent natural phenomenon through simple cause and effect notations and mathematical models and theorems...not just "word play" but careful study and re-study..that is the work of science...
And my rebuttal to this aspect of the video is to ask how logical it is to make 13.8 billion light-years of space filled with billions of galaxies occupied by billions of stars...occupied by billions of planets,moons,asteroids etc to occupy one planet at the rim of a galaxy's inner arm with human beings instead of comfortably with the alleged being in "heaven"...and how logical is it that my food can get lodge in my throat and kill me?
WHAT MAKES SENSE
Creationists use this statement to get away with their claims by ridiculing anything they go against to make their extra-ordinary claims of deities as credible....all i will say concerning this is that "what makes sense" is different from what can be shown to be true...for ages mankind believed what "makes sense" and most of it turned out to be wrong...from the flat-earth to steady-state theory etc
LAW-GIVER
This is the equivocation of terms between laws at the court-level and laws at the physics level....laws at the physics levels are phenomena that have been demonstrated to be true no matter the circumstances...they are not given but reside in the nature of the universe...the three sides of a triangle for instance cannot be given nor changed because it is a definitive concept that is true no matter where you are in the universe unless the definition or usage of the term is changed...the properties remain the same...
Wheeew olaadegbu...how many video's will you use to shift the burden of proof this time...

OLAADEGBU: If anyone is misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misconstruing science at all it is you. Check out the nature of science in the videoclip below and discover what reals science is and how it confirms the accuracy of the Bible:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Z0PAqgjWo

lol...you've jumped from one video assertion to the next.. ...note that i will again watch this video and comment on how it "confirms the accuracy of the bible" ...while i do such,olaadegbu why not comment on the previous video you uploaded of which i made haste to eviscerate...

After watching your video i have seen as usual the tenants i have pointed out which i would identify here
MISREPRESENTATIONS
Merely 26 seconds into the video...evolution is defined as "life arising from non-life" and "molecules to man" accusations just 11 seconds after the first misrepresentation... and evolution isn't just a "things change" definition...it is defined as the gradual change of organisms through inheritance and allele frequency changes and distribution...
And at 45 seconds start the usual accusation that evolution isn't testable whereas i posted a link(if you had bothered to check of scientific experiments where evolution was observed and tested in the labouratory)
[url] http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html [/url]
Lizards of the species Podarcis sicula from a nearby island were introduced by scientists to a new island previously uninhabited by scientists in 1971. Since then, several evolutionary changes have occurred. The lizards now have larger heads and stronger bites. In addition, the population has evolved cecal valves, entirely new organs.
And by 1 minute the presenter claims no known evidence of genetic information being added to organisms'...hmmm lets see again...from phylointelligence.com
Evolution of novel genes and function in HIV

The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene
And the "life has not been observed to come from non-life" is vaguely arbituary.....what is life?...if not the conglumeration of elements,compounds and mixtures...are those not "non-life" that make-up life? and they even debunk their own mythology where "god" creates humans from sand... is sand not "non-life"?

OLAADEGBU: Evolution is refuted in this short videoclip. Check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWecPwrQv2c?list=PL1v9pqs4w1mxRVplL9I5Pq_qQH9jy8b1V