Anyone please?

For some time now, Android OS has consistently been the greediest on the list of things consuming the battery on my Galaxy s5. The phone is running on Android 5.0 Lollipop. Please who knows why and what I can do about it? I really need answers.

Please who knows why "Android OS" is consuming too much battery on my galaxy s5? The phone is running on Android 5.0 Lollipop I really need answers.

Butterflyleo:

I no get dat one. No vex abeg

LOL. No mind me bro.

Butterflyleo:


Here you go



[img]https://media1./images/e82c2cd09db0bf410917cda2ef22ffd4/tenor.gif?itemid=5104045[/img]

I would have preferred the other meme with the guy drinking soya milk abi wetin LOL

Butterflyleo:


You insulted them first which is customary with you. You never write a sentence that is devoid of vitriol. Its how we can tell its you even when you alternate monikers due to repeated bans you receive for the same offence which you seem addicted to.

FYI you need to wash the crusty filth of you first so you can tell when you are associating with filth.

Somebody help me with that "suppressed laughter" meme...

It is probable that the English idiomatic
understanding of “the four corners of the
earth,” referring to the remotest parts of the
earth, stems from Revelation 20:7–8. From an evaluation of its context, we may
conclude that this is also the meaning of “the
four corners of the earth” in Isaiah 11:12, the third appearance of this phrase in the
Bible. It’s use there generally is understood
to be idiomatic.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

Therefore, there is no warrant to
interpret these four corners literally,
particularly when it does not match any
cosmology. The phrase “four corners of the earth”
probably was an idiom in the Apostle John’s
time, much as it is in English today, referring
to every distant location on the earth. This is
the meaning from the context of Revelation 20:7–8, the other occurrence of the phrase “four corners of the earth” in the book of
Revelation (the King James Version has the
wordquarter here rather thancorner, though the Greek word is the same in both Revelation 7:1 and 20:7–. Idioms in one language can be difficult to translate into
another language, because a literal
translation may be meaningless in the target
language (imagine how a literal translation of
our idiom “You’re pulling my leg!” would be
understood in other languages).

Let me begin with Revelation 7:1, which speaks of four angels standing on the four corners of the earth
and restraining the four winds of the earth.
Even the most ardent students of hyper-
literal interpretation of the Bible acknowledge
the frequent poetic elements and the use of
imagery in the book of Revelation. This extends to the many occasions where
numbers appear in the book of Revelation.
In this one verse, the number four appears
three times. In each usage, the things
mentioned are intimately tied together, so
there is a one-to-one correspondence between each of the three groups of four. The four winds refer to the four directions
from which winds can come: north, south,
east, and west. We often use this
nomenclature today, such as saying that the
wind is “out of the west.” The repetition of
the number four (“four angels . . . four corners . . . four winds”) ties each angel and
each corner with one of the four compass
directions.

Bible skeptics point out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth. At the very least, they reason, this shows that the Bible writers believed one of the flat earth cosmologies of the ancient world, thus proving that the Bible is not inspired, but that the people who wrote the Bible merely reflected the worldview of their times. There are some examples of flat earth cosmologies from the ancient world, but they always consisted of a flat,round earth. A circle was considered a much more perfect shape than a square, so none of the ancient flat earth cosmologies involve a square earth. If a square flat earth were the cosmology of the Bible, then it would have been at odds with every other ancient flat earth cosmology. Therefore, this attempt by the skeptics to claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth does not square (pun intended) with the facts of history.

Sin is the transgression of the Law(1 Jn. 3:4). This Law (the priniciples of and underlying which are suitably adapted for man in the 10 Commandments) is eternal, immutable, as holy and steadfast as the throne of GOD itself, and stipulates the death of the transgressor as the penalty for its transgression(Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:23). And only the life of the Giver of the Law can atone for the transgression of the Law.

You now see why Jesus had to die just to save man from damnation.

This is why the death of Jesus Christ for the sins of man is the greatest testimony to the fact that the 10 Commandments(including the 4th, which enjoins the observance of the seventh day Sabbath) is still binding on man. For could that law ever be repealed/rescinded, the death of Jesus would not have been necessary, since all it would take to deliver man from the penalty of the Law would be to repeal the Law. But the Law could not be repealed. Therefore the Lawgiver had to die if man was to be saved.

vaxx:
Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself.

Are you sure you're not alone in saying that this "evolutionary science" of yours is falsifiable?

"First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Dobzhansky concludes that the “applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted.” Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution “cannot be refuted by any possible observations” and thus is “outside of empirical science.”

Here's the full quote:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, Sydney University). Nature, Apr 22,1967, p.352.]

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/

Before you inundate me with the "different ways in which evolution" could be falsified, I have one request to make: show me the very first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one.

By the way, here is an evolutionist, Paul Ehrlich agreeing that there is something called empirical science(aka operational science), as against historical science.

vaxx:
i have never read it anywhere where notable scientist claims that they are two type of science..... in as much i believe your link had some references, i will like you to quote a scientist authority that classify science as your op claim... The problem i have with the op distinction is that all science is empirical, and all science is historical. What happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago is observational, and we have the evidence and technology to observe, hypothesize, and test this type of science. unless you and the op is rejecting the use of technology.

Can you show me the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one?

vaxx:
Yes i do get you , science in general do not need to adopt superfluous proposition....natural event that happens today, yesterday, tomorrow or even in the next twenty minute is historical , observable and testable. if not the purpose of forensic science will be useless as no jury will be able to convict a criminal as the jury was not there personally to wittiness the crime.... and effort made to study the past natural event to prevent the damage effect of earthquake or volcanoes too on human will be useless.... relying on eye wittiness account only is very ridiculous ,illogical and it contradict science....

Do you need an eye wittiness account for DNA test? if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed? the description of how unicellular turn to multi cellular is not so compelling for now but the findings is yet to be totally falsified.

Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself.

Has the meaning of the word "observe" changed? How can you observe something that happened when you were not there, and there was no camera to record it for you? Who saw the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one? In your analogy, the jury were not there when the crime occurred but remember that if there is no piece of evidence against a suspect which his lawyer cannot successfully dispute, he may never be convicted.

On the 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA, I'm gonna let a combination of articles from two sources speak here:

"The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story.


What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes?

The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23).

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same amounts of the proteins are produced. Such differences in protein expression can yield vastly different responses in cells. Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans.

Gene families are groups of genes that have similar sequences and also similar functions. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross."

"In conclusion, the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario.

Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play."

http://creation.mobi/human-chimp-dna-similarity
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/

vaxx:
False, an intelligence hypothesis had been made on how unicellular organism turned into multi cellular organism .... visit this page..... it explained better than i can do..... sooner or later, a theory will be established on it . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Hypotheses_for_origin..... Am not asking you about Adam or Joshua as historical figure, i am asking you, can you simply justify the claim made about them according to the bible scientifically? Joshua asking yhwh to stop the world for a day. and if probably you can justify Adam scientifically as the first man on earth? since you are treating bible as an observation evidence.

i will vist the link you posted

You don't get it, do you?

I have not asked you to describe for me how a unicellular could turn into a multicellular one. You could come up with a very detailed description of how a unicellular organism could turn into a multicellular one, but that is not a proof that a unicellular organism turned into a multicellular one billions of years ago, since no one was there to observe it. Just like my coming up with a very detailed description of how my great grandfather could have drowned in my village stream does not mean that my great grandfather really drowned in my village stream(supposing that there is no one today who can tell anything about anything that happened during my grandfather's era)

That said, no one has ever even observed any unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one, nor do scientists even have a single convincing description of how that could have happened. Even the Wikipedia page you provided listed the myriad of mechanisms all proposed to explain how unicellular organisms could turn into multicellular ones, and of course with the various problems that face them.

Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle,

Vaxx, what is this scientific principle you're talking about?

vaxx:
This is where the problem start, bible is not a scientific model, applying scientific techniques to justify biblical truth will amount to treating biblical evidence as scientific theory which can be upset or falsify at anytime..... how can you justify that God indeed stop the world for a day as bible indicate, can it be observed? how can you justify that first creation was truly Adam? can it be observed? any fossil of Adam to buttress your point? science and biblical evidence are two separate field that actually do not intertwined. biblical evidence is not dynamic ....it is meant to be so till eternity. how is it science?

Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle, if the starting assumption is base on biblical assumption ,then it is not science anymore. bible itself is not a benchmark for science so why base the assumption on a wrong tools. natural selection is the major available evidence now, for any hypothesis to be consider , it must meet the theorem of scientific principle. if natural selection will be replaced today, the next mechanism will derived its assumption from basic observational findings which is the bedrock of science....science works with data and not tales or myths .

scientist may argue that common ancestor may not equate common creator ...... look at pig and hippopotamus ..... both are almost identical yet they live in different world, hippopotamus is more closer to whales genetically that pig....


relying on biblical evidence may not be too good for your reason, while science too may also not be enough since it has limitations.... why dont you just enjoy yourself and learn...... instead of trying to justify what already contradict themselves....

Adam and Joshua's long day, as recorded in the Bible, cannot be observed today. And so is molecules-to-man evolution. Nobody saw any unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one billions of years ago.

I've created a topic on this before:
https://www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

vaxx:
All scientist evidence are base on observational principle,

All the evidences for Biblical models are based on observational principles too. Bible-believing scientists observe what evolutionists observe too.

in evolution theory for instance which you may consider an historical science.Thousands of human fossils were studied, researched were also carried on Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record.

The fossils were studied and findings recorded. But the interpretations given to these findings are different, because starting assumptions are different. Perhaps to help you: have you observed how ready evolutionists are to interpret any new finding in such a way as to make it fit into the evolutionary model? Have you asked yourself why evolutionists may be ready to drop Natural Selection as the driving force of evolution and look for another mechanism, but are not ready to abandon evolution?

In human genetics evidence were also observed on how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and that indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances of technology in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. any science without observation is simply pseudoscience .... observational method is the bedrock of scientific findings.

Relatedness of/common design in organisms can serve as evidence for a common Creator as much as it can serve as evidence for a common ancestor. Nay, I say that it serves better as an evidence for a common Creator than as an evidence for a common ancestor.

MrMystrO:


Please Enlighten me on what Radio carbon dating is, Because i do know that is the modern dating technique used for historical verification right now, So how is that not an observational and experimental science? Don't fool yourself anymore please.

The basic science and math underlying popular Radiocarbon dating, such as the half-life of Carbon-14 being about 5730 years, and the calculations employed are correct. Bible-believing Christians do not dispute that. However the starting Naturalistic assumptions (e.g. that the conditions today were the same conditions in the past) are most probably wrong.

vaxx:
how can you justify the claim bible made concerning Joshua, that he ask God to stop the world for a day? am sure you know it is scientifically impossible

How I can justify it? The God who is able to create the universe is able to do anything.

But if the question is, "how did it happen?", I suggest you read the different answers already proposed to it by many people. They are there on the Internet.

Bump...

Christians are not trying to discredit science.

www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

In fact, Christians practise science too, and have pioneered, and continue to pioneer researches in different areas of science.

Be properly informed. Don't be deceived by the efforts of evolutionists to paint Bible-believing Christians as anti-science.

MrMystrO:
Hahaha this guy! I will humbly suggest to you that you leave science alone Please. Stick to preaching your bible gospel message to people who are interested in it and stop meddling in affairs you Know NOTHING about, Honestly your attempts at trying to discredit science makes you look Extremely stupid and i don't want to believe you're that stupid because you should Know They Don't go Hand in Hand. Stick to What you Know!! I've told you before, if you want to dispute scientific facts, Start by throwing away your Phone and creating your own phone and internet which you and your kind can use But if you can't do that then Stop displaying your Ignorance here on a daily basis, Its getting extremely boring!

The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution.

Over a century ago, astute anti-Darwinian apologist G.K. Chesterton1 (1874–1936) explained what had returned him “back to orthodox theology.”2 Surprisingly, the culprits were the leading christophobes of his day. Their attacks on Christianity were so irrational that they contradicted each other:

“As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith … a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind—the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west.”
On the one hand, they ‘proved’ Christianity was “a thing of inhuman gloom”, but then they proved that Christianity “was a great deal too optimistic.” Christianity supposedly caused overpopulation by “Go forth and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but then it was supposedly anti-sex. Another of Chesterton’s examples was:

“Or, again, certain phrases in the Epistles or the marriage service, were said by the anti-Christians to show contempt for woman’s intellect. But I found that the anti-Christians themselves had a contempt for woman’s intellect; for it was their great sneer at the Church on the Continent that ‘only women’ went to it.”
So Chesterton concluded that either Christianity was very wrong indeed, if mutually incompatible objections can be hurled at it—or it was the one right belief system with the proper balance.

We see the same attacks today against consistent Christianity—creation as Christ proclaimed.3 For example, creation is ‘unscientific’ because “the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification.”4 But in the same breath, the critics tell us “scientists from many fields have examined these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable.” But how could creation have been “examined” (i.e. tested) if its ideas are “not subject to test”?4 Also, atheists claim that we should accept only scientifically testable claims—but that claim is not scientifically testable.

On this line, many evolutionists claim that no true scientist believes in biblical Creation or doubts goo-to-you evolution. Creationists often counter with someone with high scientific qualifications and important contributions to science who does believe in creation and disbelieves evolution (such as Dr Ainsley Chalmers, pp. 35–37). But then the evolutionist iterates, “But no true scientist doubts evolution”, which even deserves the name, the “No True Scientist Fallacy”.

Then evolutionists accuse creationists of ‘lying’, without evidence. Yet they go on to proclaim that lying is the result of evolution (see “Lying and more as a survival strategy”, pp. 16–18). Many evolutionists also claim that all belief systems should be explained by evolutionary survival, so we can dismiss their truth claims. But then, their own evolutionary belief system should also be explained by evolution, not by its own truth claims.

Evolutionary belief leads to contradictions of its own: we evolved by survival of the fittest, in a ruthless struggle for existence, eliminating our competitors. But then we should care for endangered species—who are our losing competitors (see “Answering fool’s folly”, pp. 14–15).

As Creation magazine prepares to enter its 36th year, we can look back on its years of exposing evolutionary contradictions and defending Christianity. As we look forward, we pray that it continues in this task in the 100+ countries it goes to.

Source: http://creation.mobi/anti-creationism-illogic-editorial

.

festwiz:
WTF did i just read?

Which part of the post do you not understand?

We can divide the slavery regulations into those for Israelites and non-Israelites. Israelites could only be indentured servants, not lifetime servants (unless they so preferred their situation with their master that they asked to be lifetime slaves). They were to be freed after 7 years and compensated generously for their time. They were also protected by several laws; they were not chattel. If a man took a female slave for a concubine, she had certain rights and could not simply be discarded.

Non-Israelites could be enslaved for life. However, they also had certain rights, including Sabbath rest in the household of their master. They could not be wantonly mistreated.

But we also have to ask: what would the alternative be? Israelites might be enslaved because of extreme poverty or because of being convicted of a crime. Slavery is not ideal, but it beats starving to death or being executed for a crime. Non-Israelites would be taken as slaves in armed conflict—again, most people would choose slavery to death.

In the New Testament, we must remember that Christians were a small minority. The Roman government had a way of squashing movements that openly called for slave revolts. But Christians had a way of gently subverting the order. Paul addressed slaves as people capable of choosing godly submission in the context of their slavery, but the really subversive part is that he called slave owners to treat their slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. Really read the letter of Philemon and try to come to a conclusion other than that Paul wants Philemon to free Onesimus. In fact, church history indicates that Philemon did exactly that, and Onesimus became a leader in the early church.

Of course slave-holders quoted the Bible to try to justify their actions, just like wife-beaters might quote the Bible to try to justify their abuse. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a valid reading of Scripture.

Source: http://creation.mobi/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

hopefulLandlord:


You Christians don't read your bible at all and only regurgitate apologist bullsheet that'd only make sense to sheeples


Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45
no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.


These passages show that there is a difference between someone who is hired, someone who is a bonded servant, and someone who is bought, paid for, and owned. These are laws for priests. If the Bible had a problem with people owning other people, why couldn't it at least ban the priesthood from owning slaves?

Also the below needs to be addressed



"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby." - Deuteronomy 20:10-15


I'm sure "Become our slaves so that you can keep your family or die and lose your family to us as war booty" isn't really FORCING

What, other than Divine Mercy, could offer the option of slavery/forced labor to a people who surely deserved death/destruction -- against whom the armies of Israel had been brought for destruction -- because "their iniquity has reached its full measure"(Gen. 15:16)?

Secular history gives much evidence to show that the survivors of Noah’s Flood were real historical figures, whose names were indelibly carved on much of the ancient world.

When Noah and his family stepped out of the Ark, they were the only people on Earth. It fell to Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives, to repopulate the Earth through the children that were born to them after the Flood. Of Noah’s grandchildren, 16 grandsons are named in Genesis chapter 10.

God has left us ample evidence to confirm that these 16 grandsons of Noah really lived, that the names the Bible gives were their exact names, and that after the Babel dispersion (Genesis 11:1-32) their descendants fanned out over the earth and established the various nations of the ancient world.

The first generations after the Flood lived to be very old, with some men outliving their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. This set them apart. The 16 grandsons of Noah were the heads of their family clans, which became large populations in their respective areas. Several things happened:

People in various areas called themselves by the name of the man who was their common ancestor.

They called their land, and often their major city and major river, by his name.

Sometimes the various nations fell off into ancestor worship. When this happened, it was natural for them to name their god after the man who was ancestor of all of them, or to claim their long-living ancestor as their god.

All of this means that the evidence has been preserved in a way that can never be lost, and all the ingenuity of man cannot erase. We will now examine it.

The seven sons of Japheth

Genesis 10:1–2 reads:

‘Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.’

The first of Noah’s grandsons mentioned is Gomer. Ezekiel locates the early descendants of Gomer, along with Togarmah (a son of Gomer), in the north quarters (Ezekiel 38:6). In modern Turkey is an area which in New Testament times was called Galatia. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records that the people who were called Galatians or Gauls in his day (c. AD 93) were previously called Gomerites.1

They migrated westward to what are now called France and Spain. For many centuries France was called Gaul, after the descendants of Gomer. North-west Spain is called Galicia to this day.

Some of the Gomerites migrated further to what is now called Wales. The Welsh historian, Davis, records a traditional Welsh belief that the descendants of Gomer ‘landed on the Isle of Britain from France, about three hundred years after the flood’.2 He also records that the Welsh language is called Gomeraeg (after their ancestor Gomer).

Other members of their clan settled along the way, including in Armenia. The sons of Gomer were ‘Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah’ (Genesis 10:3). Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the Armenians traditionally claim to be descended from Togarmah and Ashkenaz.3 Ancient Armenia reached into Turkey. The name Turkey probably comes from Togarmah. Others of them migrated to Germany. Ashkenaz is the Hebrew word for Germany.

The next grandson mentioned is Magog. According to Ezekiel, Magog lived in the north parts (Ezekiel 38:15, 39:2). Josephus records that those whom he called Magogites, the Greeks called Scythians.1 According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the ancient name for the region which now includes part of Romania and the Ukraine was Scythia.4

The next grandson is Madai. Along with Shem’s son Elam, Madai is the ancestor of our modern-day Iranians. Josephus says that the descendants of Madai were called Medes by the Greeks.1 Every time the Medes are mentioned in the Old Testament, the word used is the Hebrew word Madai (maday). After the time of Cyrus, the Medes are always (with one exception) mentioned along with the Persians. They became one kingdom with one law—‘the law of the Medes and Persians’ (Daniel 6:8, 12, 15). Later they were simply called Persians. Since 1935 they have called their country Iran. The Medes also ‘settled India’.5

The name of the next grandson, Javan, is the Hebrew word for Greece. Greece, Grecia, or Grecians appears five times in the Old Testament, and is always the Hebrew word Javan. Daniel refers to ‘the king of Grecia’ (Daniel 8:21), literally ‘the king of Javan’. Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim (Genesis 10:4), all of whom have connections with the Greek people. The Elysians (an ancient Greek people) obviously received their name from Elishah. Tarshish or Tarsus was located in the region of Cilicia (modern Turkey).

Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Kittim is the biblical name for Cyprus.6 The people who initially settled around the area of Troy worshipped Jupiter under the name of Jupiter Dodonaeus, possibly a reference to the fourth son of Javan, with Jupiter a derivative of Japheth. His oracle was at Dodena. The Greeks worshipped this god but called him Zeus.

Next is Tubal. Ezekiel mentions him along with Gog and Meshech (Ezekiel 39:1). Tiglath-pileser I, king of Assyria in about 1100 BC, refers to the descendants of Tubal as the Tabali. Josephus recorded their name as the Thobelites, who were later known as Iberes.1

‘Their land, in Josephus’ day, was called by the Romans Iberia, and covered what is now (the former Soviet State of) Georgia whose capital to this day bears the name Tubal as Tbilisi. From here, having crossed the Caucasus mountains, this people migrated due north-east, giving their tribal name to the river Tobol, and hence to the famous city of Tobolsk.’7

Meshech, the name of the next grandson, is the ancient name for Moscow. Moscow is both the capital of Russia, and the region that surrounds the city. To this day, one section, the Meshchera Lowland, still carries the name of Meshech, virtually unchanged by the ages.

According to Josephus, the descendants of grandson Tiras were called Thirasians. The Greeks changed their name to Thracians.1 Thrace reached from Macedonia on the south to the Danube River on the north to the Black Sea on the east. It took in much of what became Yugoslavia. World Book Encyclopaedia says: ‘The people of Thrace were savage Indo-Europeans, who liked warfare and looting.’8 Tiras was worshipped by his descendants as Thuras, or Thor, the god of thunder.

The four sons of Ham

Next we come to the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan (Genesis 10:6).

The descendants of Ham live mainly in south-west Asia and Africa. The Bible often refers to Africa as the land of Ham (Psalms 105:23,27; 106:22). The name of Noah’s grandson Cush is the Hebrew word for old Ethiopia (from Aswan south to Khartoum). Without exception, the word Ethiopia in the English Bible is always a translation of the Hebrew word Cush. Josephus rendered the name as Chus, and says that the Ethiopians ‘are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites’.9

Noah’s next grandson mentioned was Mizraim. Mizraim (mitsrayîm, מצרים) is the Hebrew word for Egypt. The name Egypt appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament and (with one exception) is always a translation of the word Mizraim. E.g. at the burial of Jacob, the Canaanites observed the mourning of the Egyptians and so called the place Abel Mizraim (Genesis 50:11).

Phut, the name of Noah’s next grandson is the Hebrew name for Libya. It is so translated three times in the Old Testament. The ancient river Phut was in Libya. By Daniel’s day, the name had been changed to Libya (Daniel 11:43). Josephus says, ‘Phut also was the founder of Libia [sic], and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself.’9

Canaan, the name of Noah’s next grandson, is the Hebrew name for the general region later called by the Romans Palestine, i.e. modern Israel and Jordan. Here we should look briefly at a few of the descendants of Ham (Genesis 10:14–18). There is Philistim, obviously the ancestor of the Philistines (clearly giving rise to the name Palestine [ed. note: but see Origins of the word “Palestine”, 2011]), and Sidon, the founder of the ancient city that bears his name, and Heth, the patriarch of the ancient Hittite empire. Also, this descendant is listed in Genesis 10:15–18 as being the ancestor of the Jebusites (Jebus was the ancient name for Jerusalem—Judges 19:10), the Amorites, the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites, ancient peoples who lived in the land of Canaan.

The most prominent descendant of Ham was Nimrod, the founder of Babel (Babylon), as well as of Erech, Accad and Calneh in Shinar (Babylonia).

The five sons of Shem

Last we come to the sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram (Genesis 10:22).

Elam is the ancient name for Persia, which is itself the ancient name for Iran. Until the time of Cyrus the people here were called Elamites, and they were still often called that even in New Testament times. In Acts 2:9, the Jews from Persia who were present at Pentecost were called Elamites. The Persians are thus descended from both Elam, the son of Shem, and from Madai, the son of Japheth (see above). Since the 1930s they have called their country Iran.

It is interesting to note that the word ‘Aryan’, which so fascinated Adolf Hitler, is a form of the word ‘Iran’. Hitler wanted to produce a pure Aryan ‘race’ of supermen. But the very term ‘Aryan’ signifies a mixed line of Semites and Japhethites!

Asshur is the Hebrew word for Assyria. Assyria was one of the great ancient empires. Every time the words Assyria or Assyrian appear in the Old Testament, they are translated from the word Asshur. He was worshipped by his descendants.

‘Indeed, as long as Assyria lasted, that is until 612 BC, accounts of battles, diplomatic affairs and foreign bulletins were daily read out to his image; and every Assyrian king held that he wore the crown only with the express permission of Asshur’s deified ghost.’10

Arphaxad was the progenitor of the Chaldeans. This ‘is confirmed by the Hurrian (Nuzi) tablets, which render the name as Arip-hurra—the founder of Chaldea.’11 His descendant, Eber, gave his name to the Hebrew people via the line of Eber-Peleg-Reu-Serug-Nahor-Terah-Abram (Genesis 11:16–26). Eber’s other son, Joktan, had 13 sons (Genesis 10:26–30), all of whom appear to have settled in Arabia.12

Lud was the ancestor of the Lydians. Lydia was in what is now Western Turkey. Their capital was Sardis—one of the seven churches of Asia was at Sardis (Revelation 3:1).

Aram is the Hebrew word for Syria. Whenever the word Syria appears in the Old Testament it is a translation of the word Aram. The Syrians call themselves Arameans, and their language is called Aramaic. Before the spread of the Greek Empire, Aramaic was the international language (2 Kings 18:26 ff). On the Cross, when Jesus cried out, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani’ (Mark 15:34),13 He was speaking Aramaic, the language of the common people.

Conclusion

We have only taken the briefest glance at Noah’s sixteen grandsons,14 but enough has been said to show that they really did live, that they were who the Bible says they were, and that their descendants are identifiable on the pages of history. Not only is the Bible not a collection of myths and legends, but it stands alone as the key to the history of the earliest ages of the world.

Source: http://creation.mobi/the-sixteen-grandsons-of-noah

hopefulLandlord:
I'm an atheist because when it comes to scrutinising a claim, one should start with the null hypothesis then arrive at a reasonable conclusion after examining evidences

I believe there is no god because the null hypothesis starts me from there, and it's up to believers to demonstrate that their god proposition is true.

When anybody can:
1. Provide a coherent definition of what they mean by "god"

2. Provide empirically testable predictions of that god, and show that these predictions are true

3. Show that this god is more parsimonious than all other natural explanations

I'll (at least tentatively) accept that a god exists. So far, none of these requirements have come anywhere close to being met, and I can reasonably assert that the proposition of a god existing is likely false.

God is the entity to which the laws of thought appeal for their authority if rational discourse is to be necessarily guided by/based on them.

Can't the main test be fixed on Friday(or any other day), to accommodate Seventh-Day Adventist students like me who can't write it on Saturday(at least not before 6 pm on Saturday)?

xfire

500 Pisces ko 500 Amphibia ni