₦airaland Forum

PhenomenonVFX: Dude. Dont even bother trying to reason with that Emusan guy. He is the god of pseudoscience. And he will never concede.

I'm not a god but man with full evidence of God Almighty existence.

I do conceed or reason with other people but the reality of nature with evidence of personal contact with God will never allow me to agree with any fairytale of atheist scientist.

I only try to let other christians who has not had personal encounter with God and ready to compromise their faith in God because of the lies of personal interpretation of facts by some people in our universe like some atheist on NL do to KNOW that not everything......completed in my signature!

Shalom!

mkmyers45: Do you know how ridiculous the bolded sounds? So fishes, microbes, WHALES, sharks, crayfish, and what not survived the flood but Aquatic dinosaurs didn't?

What does the bold mean? I couldn't get you.

But just try to understand a message before you post.

I said:

emusan: For aquatic dinosaurs even the global flood account made it clear that the water at the deep burst forth first before the windows of heaven was opened. the aquatic lives will first of all affected before cripple lives.

@bold-affected is different from 'distroyed' if what you mean @bold in your post is that all lives in water died.

Some will die and some will survive because they live in water and water covers all the face of the earth.

mkmyers45: I was making a point....

What point?

Now did he? Can you point to me in your works where he did?

Go back to the OP

Dont make me laugh...Do you even know the impact of “fossil” magnetism on your whole argument? Do you full grasp the concept of magnetic pole reversals or do we go by your logic and assume that in just 168 years the earth's magnetic field have gotten 0.0595238095238095% weaker per year? of course we then extrapolate back and we have 1680+5 years for 100% depletion wont we?

Even ooman did the samething....how can I describe that?(I mean this your interpolation) did I say this 10% is constant over the years?

See what I said in my Op

emusan: Again, magnetic field of earth goes against billions years because if Carl Friedrich could notice it in 1845 and today it's ten times weaker than what he observed in 1845 then if earth is billions years the magnetic field would have faded out.

what does the bold tell you?
Please always read and digest message before you jump into conclusion.

My question is, did magnetic field fading up or not?

mkmyers45: Tree-ring dating gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

What are you trying to prove here?
Do you mean carbon-14 dating ratio is correct or what?

Dr Libby's experiment is based on the fact that the rate of removal and deposition is the same but the evidence for the earth’s having a progressively stronger magnetic field in the past is based on reliable historical measurements and “fossil” magnetism trapped in ancient pottery.

Yes! then if the magnetic field is stronger in the past than it is now, why did Libby conclude carbon-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium?
This equilibrium is the major discrepancy in Libby's work not the dating method.

So how do you make you calculations when the best estimates indicate that the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago, and possibly four times as strong 2,800 years ago?

Thank God you even mention of a strong magnetic field in past than now, then what makes the difference? I said about 200 years ago you said about 1,400 years. how many 200 years generations do we have in 1,400 years?


You never get my point up till now...hmmmmmm

mkmyers45: Nope. There is a lot of fossil evidence and it tells quite a story. First off, we can see many different types of dinosaurs that existed during different times. Even if you do not trust the current dating methods, the simple logical analysis of the fossils shows that certain types of dinosaurs are never found in the same layers. A Cretaceous dinosaur would not ever be found in a Triassic layer. This shows that the layers were put down at quite different times. Enough time to allow one type of dinosaur to live and breed and die out and then for another type to come along. By the way, this ties into evolution.

Next up, is the world lacks a consistent layer that would be created by a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood should have put a single layer of sediment around the world. We would be able to find it all over and it would be pretty darned easy to spot. It is not there. We can see world wide layers for other actions in the past. For instance, there is a layer at the KT boundary that is believed to be fallout from a very large asteroid hitting the planet. It is a very ancient layer though. There is no layer that indicates a world wide flood. Since we can find dinosaur fossils all over the planet then it would take a worldwide event to wipe them all out. If it was a flood then there should be a worldwide layer. That is not there so it could not have been a flood that did the job.

Another piece of evidence against the idea of a worldwide flood killing the dinosaurs is that they are found in a lot of different types of deposits. Paleontologists have found fossils in all kinds of layers that were deposited under a variety of methods and under a variety of circumstances. There are fossils that were quickly covered over by floods, there are some that sank into swamps, there are some that were covered over by landslides. Each of these will leave different chemical characteristics in the layer. If a flood killed all of the dinosaurs then there should be a single type of layer or at least a predominant type of layer.

Also what happened to aquatic dinosaurs?

If you read my post carefully especially those verses you will discover that verse 17 says "they shall lie together" which simply means it didn't happen in a day but in different occasions and a fossil of different creature can be found together.


For aquatic dinosaurs even the global flood account made it clear that the water at the deep burst forth first before the windows of heaven was opened. the aquatic lives will first of all affected before cripple lives.
shalom!

Kudos to OP and other people who has contributed with their little knowledge.

But the book of Isaiah has been dated no matter how less than 150BC by skeptic and it's a book of prophecy (things that has happened and things to come).

Isaiah says something in:
Isaiah 43:16-17 "16Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; 17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.

Verse 17 clearly stated how fossil had formed and how lives had gone into extinction(including Dinosaur).

Scientist has recorded that 98% of lives(including Dinosaur) had gone into extinction which it can be traced back to Genesis global flood (for a creationist).
And generally speaking, a fossil is any evidence of past plant or animal life that is preserved in the material of the Earth's crust. But when most people talk about fossils, they mean a specific subsection of this group -- fossils in which the shape of the animal or plant has been preserved, while the actual organic matter of its body is gone.
Though Dinosaur was not mentioned in the Bible but if you can pay close attention with that verse 17 you will discover that Dinosaur falls within the text.

With such certainty only God could vividly know that some lives has gone extinct and formed fossilize materials about 3000 years ago when this book was written when NO MAN could've conceived the ideas of fossilized matterials because He made it happened that way for a known reason best to Him.

mazaje: The OP is just an ignorant young earth creationist that relies on the LIES and STUPIDITY of peusdo scientist that cal themselves creation scientist. . .Can the OP show us any peer reviewed scientific method opf dating from his lying creation scientist tht shows that the earth is 6000 years old?. . .

All these crazy looneys of yours know that the earth isnt 4 billion years old and they haven't shown us and won Nbel peace prices already, eh?. . .Keep deluding yourself. .

Very soon you will claim you become an atheist not on any scientific evidence but always try to defend any scientist reseachs.

You disown your faithful evolution birth ape-to-mazaje just because you have seen the future of evolution. I won't say much!

plaetton: I keep saying that you guys are deaf and dumb. the whole theory of Abiogenesis is to try to show plausibility.

Remember, after successful outcome of Miller-Urey experiment it being published in journals, books, medials that scientist have successfully demostrated how life could've started in early Earth inwhich some years back Plaetton also believe that life started in on earth. If you're not deaf and dumb as you say in your post why can't you ask yourself if scientist don't know the origin of LIFE, how do they know only a single cell started it all?

They did their best simulate a prehistoric environmental condition. They did not have to get it 100% right.

They been awarded for the outcome of their experiment hope you know that.

Any one with an open mind would know that 3.5 billion years ago, the earth and our solar system could have been in another part of the galaxy as the sun carries us along her 250 billion years cycle around the galactic center.
So the conditions could have been totally different and perhaps, unique.

No wonder scientist couldn't account for rotation of the planet like Venus & Uranus that rotate clockwise on their axis while the rest like Earth, Mercury e.t.c rotate anticlockwise despite that all planet are control by same SUN.

It is also possible, again for any one with an open mind, that the actual first process that generated life could have very well occurred in another planet or in another galaxy before being accidentally or deliberately transported to earth via meteorites or comets.

I will slap you from my Phone for you to mention 'DELIBERATELY', do you realise that deliberate is an action from a purposeful mind set?

Quite frankly, anyone who is not open minded enough to consider(not necessarily accept) such scenarios is not qualified to see him or herself as a seeker of knowledge, a discussion of this sort a waste of time.

Imagine Plaetton as an open minded still believes in one cell turns to billions of lives we can see today, when the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor accident in Russia is still producing disease in the local population because it increases the radiation and causes high mutations.

It does not matter to me the technical shortcomings of an idea as long as the general idea is scientifically plausible.

which scientific idea?

The very fact that other eminent scientists can find fault in the experiment speaks volumes about the superiority of the scientific system.
It is laughable that one wants to use scientific rationalism to dismiss a scientific notion, and then tries to substitute with non-scientific invisible hand hokus pokus.

lol...

If you dismiss the theory of Abiogenesis on flimsy technicalities, then you must offer a more reasonable and plausible scientific notion that we can work with.

Let me tell you the secret behind LIFE and why atheist scientist have not found the origin of LIFE.

Life is an immaterial which atheist don't believe in.
Cells are not life natural death proves it.
Life can only come from life.
Life isn't a chemical formula.

These four points are all true about LIFE take it or leave it.

[quote author=Area_boy]@ OP.. See your problem? you base all your argument from one book. Hmmmmm that sounds familiar [/quote]Which book?

Slap Dr in front of Libby and immediately, everything he says has to be correct. Do the right thing by quoting other books and also quote counter arguments from other books for a comprehensive research then draw your conclusion.

Now that Dr. Libby's work has been refuted atheist begin to reject his work as usual like Miller-Urey remember Libby is an atheist not creationist.

Anyway it's normal atheist behavious, now natural selection is getting old but 'puntuated equilibrium' is the next on evolution.

Why art thou unstable like the moring star your great father?

ooman: another mumu post.

Hmmm...

if earth's magnetic field goes by 10% in less than 200 years, then at this rate, the earth will be 2000 years. do you even realize that before posting mumu things here.

Ooman you too funny, who says the 10% is constant over the years and did everything about earth has been in a regular condictions since its birth?

I believe you do know that?

ooman: ode xtians...

Must you be abusive before you comment? Anyway that's how you've been taught in your religion.

if NASA find life on Mars, then evolution is even more supported as it has been hypothesized that life formed on Mars and got to earth by meteors.

After life originated from land &ocean have been refuted, now it is space. Don't you know that cell is not life but it carries life itself. Life is immaterial!

You still believe in this your RM & NS hmmm....if I ask now why evolution of ape to man has not occured...ooman will say it takes a long time....but if I ask is evolution ever occur..ooman will say it happens around him....

Just go and defend yourself in '@Deepsight' thread.

So if NASA finds life on mars, which is likely, then earth bound creation of life is destroyed....am not counting on it sha

Why?

ROSSIKE: One last thing: Never ever in your life make the assumption that one's rejection of the bible 'God' equates to rejection of God the Creator. The bible 'God' is NOT God, and cannot possibly be the Almighty.

Hummm....which god is the creator again that has troubled Rossik's mind so much to open this thread?

Many religions much older than christianity believe in an Intelligent Creator, and reject the Bible 'God'. How dare you equate their rejection of your phantom, bloodthirsty tyrant with the rejection of the INTELLIGENT source of all life? This is the arrogance borne of bone-headed ignorance and dumbitude we're talking about.

No wonder you keep getting sleepless night about this same God.

Remember you purposefully open this thread about this Bible God Almighty NOT older religions gods.

If I may ask, what make you think and quietly sat down and begin to type to ask this question? Is it not because you don't have rest of mind everyday about this God?
Have you ever asked yourself why your mind keeps poundering about this God every night & day and not other religions gods.

To your op, I can see you misunderstand God when you think He begs for your worship NO! But He created you for you to obey Him and recognise Him as the only God.

mkmyers45: Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14
C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Carbon dating was presented to the world by Willard Libby in 1949, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Since its introduction it has been used to date many items, including samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Shroud of Turin, enough Egyptian artifacts to supply a chronology of Dynastic Egypt,[2] and Ötzi the Iceman.[3]

The dating technique is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms, including the main stable isotope (12
C) and an unstable isotope (14 C) in all organic matter. Through photosynthesis, plants absorb both forms from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it contains a ratio of 14C to 12C, but, as the 14
C decays with no possibility of replenishment, the ratio decreases at a regular rate. This rate is known as the half-life of 14C. The measurement of 14C decay provides an indication of the age of any carbon-based material (a raw radiocarbon age).[4] However, over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow for the fine-tuning, or calibration, of the indications derived from measuring the carbon ratio. A raw radiocarbon age, once calibrated, yields a calendar date.

One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.

Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by the 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[41] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[41] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).

A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Where does the 5,000 year limit come from when the same method you describe is been used to date material 60,000 years old which is much more 'older' than the 30,000 years you talk about as equilibrium.

Mr. Too know we've seen you, the conutless words you put up here and the OP what make the different?

The blind glass you put-on couldn't allow you to see clearly where it was written that Dr. Libby's work ignored the descripancy of nonequillibrium which is later true.

In a simplest form nonequillibrium means the production rate of carbon14 is not equall the removal rate of carbon14 which it has been found out to be true but at the initial work of Dr. Libby he noticed that for carbon14 to reach equillibrium it will take 30,000yrs but ignore this and proceded to assume ratio 14/12---Is it clear to you now?

My question is if carbon14 is it out of equillibrium till today and it will take carbon14 30,000yrs to reach this equillibrium, does earth old or young?

plaetton: The truth is that all the points can be answered in plain language.
The problem I find is that people will not accept what they dont want to accept no matter how you present it to them.

I believe something went wrong when you're typing this statement....hummm!

Do you believe the same thing happen when a theist try to explain God in a simple language?

For example, when one goes into deeper aspects of micro-biology to explain certain things, the majority will shut their ears and dismiss it simply because they dont understand micro-biology and have little inclination to do so.
They would rather sit in their comfort zone and hold on to whatever beliefs they have already accepted.

I can smell something here! Don't you believe atheist lack some SPIRITUALITY concept which they fail to verified? The samething apply here.

For example, I laid out the processes of how simple organic molecules form chains of complex molecules, and which through several chemical processes self-replicate, and how the processes continue until another complex molecule is formed to store the replicating information, a form of rudimentary intelligence, so to speak.
I went in some detail to show how these repeating processes could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.
But my friend Deepsight turns a deaf ear to that scientific information and is still asking for an explanation as to how life started.

People are being speaking in tongues, people have provided afterlife expirence, many verses have been quoted from Bible. Yet pleaton still asking for evidence.

It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation.

Wowww.... What do pleaton want again after many simple language about God?....I guess magical explanation......Christians should go to heaven and bring God and present Him to pleaton ritght..

The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

The very complex and powerful manifestation of God is too much for atheist to comprehend...they resorted to NO GOD that's the point.

[quote author=Area_boy]The point coming out of this is simple. We are here because the condition is right for us to be here (if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here) and not the other way around.[/quote]This point of yours really shows how blind atheist arguement are.

In my thread titled "Amazing Fact about earth that just right for life" 'evilbrain' claims the conditions of earth is not right for life but LIFE itself adapt to meet the conditions it found itself inwhich other atheist endosed. NOW you come here to claim the conditions of earth is right.

If this is your claim then 'natural selection that evolutionist claim is useless'

Nothing was made perfect for us, rather we live in a habitable lump of rock.

It's a pure lie, earth was designed for life.
*Earth rotate 1000 miles per hour at eguator, if it to be rotate lesser than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too long, if is to be rotate higher than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too short.

*If the atmosphere were thinner than at present, millions of meteors which are burned up in the air would fall to earth and cause terrible fires.

*Liquid water, if it exists elsewhere, is rare. Most of the universe consists of flaming gasses or frozen desolation:

For you to ignore earth being designed for life you're wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/1309629/amazing-facts-earth-cant-happen

This will be made clearer when scientist get evidence of life on other planets and I can assure you we wont have to wait long.

We're waiting!

hisblud: Thanks bros, but from what i have researched on, of recent is this

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

If you watched it, you would observe that while speaking in tongues, the part of the brain, that speech occurs is not responding? why?

Secondly, have you wondered why of all the gifts [charisma] of the Spirit, only tongues was not used in the old testament?

Thirdly, why would Christ Jesus [Yashua] specifically stated that this signs [one of it is speaking in tongues] will follow those that believe, later on completely stop it in a period of time like ours? Is Christ not the same yesterday, today and forever?

Fourthly, yes people in acts 2, heard the disciples speaking in thier own languages but have you read where some heard gibberish as you called it?

classic!!!

@op, you didn't add the huge genetic information(software of life) in our DNA molecule, why?

I always wonder why evolutionist who doesn't know the origin of life know much about LIFE itself.

My question is, how do they sure that only a single cell started it all since they don't know how, where, when of life?

Evolutionist believe that cell is LIFE but natural death has proved it wrong because during natural death the person will first undergo what we know as CLINICAL death where the heartbeat, breathing and circulation of blood stoped, 4-6minutes later the brain cells will begin to die due to lack of oxygen. Moreover if someone died a natural death within some few hours (before decomposition begins) all the cells are still there like normal living being but what we notice is the same trillions of cells lying down with absent of LIFE. Where does this immaterial LIFE come from? Nobody knows!

I always laugh whenever I see a Muslim using 'Bible' to validate Qu'ran. Must you use Bible to support Qu'ran before is true?


Let me ask you;

*Is Bible the word of God?
*If you believe Bible is the word of God, can God lie?
*Did Christian and Muslim serve the same God?
*Is Jesus Christ the 'Son of God'?

These four questions should be answered not in what muslim believe them to be but according to Christians claim.

Shalom!

King harzyz: proof from bible please....

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. KJV

ooman: Wow. Emusan.. you have been totally crushed to fine powder..

lol...but I believe you can see my reason in his post not because there's no answer to all his post.

OlaAjia: I found the same nonsense talk that has come to characterise your posts unfortunately.
And no, it doesn't mean anything was correct. I found no sense in them whatsoever. I'm not very good at responding to things that are senseless.

Ok.

What causes west winds? You seem really desperate to pass a rather ambiguous text off as scientific knowledge. I feel betrayed!

End of discusion based on the above statement.

You're not willing to concede that a star falling on earth is thoroughly unscientific, rather you attribute it to "mystery".
You challenge me to give you a verse in the Bible that mentions the moon without mentioning the sun. What is the point of this challenge? You will find a way to say there is a cryptic message in pairing both in the same verse. It implicitly means that moon reflects the sun's light.
Your unwillingness to accept that you are wrong will do nothing but reinforce your ignorance. Here's my advise, if you'll find it useful. Feel free to believe in, and practice your religion. It's a source of comfort and internal resignation. I get that and I think at some point we all need this kind of comfort in order to avoid being overwhelmed by the treacherous realities of life. But don't try to validate your beliefs with science. At best, the things you call scientific are vague, but it's a double edged sword, it could also injure you.
You have to accept that scientific method and religion are not on the same basis. Their fundamental axioms and assumptions are very different, and while you may sometimes find points of intersection. You may also find points of severe divergence that will plunge you into an abyss of cognitive dissonance.

Take care!

mazaje: You left the thread only because your ignorance was exposed.

Lol..

You obviously did not even know what the earth's atmosphere was.

Ofcourse I do unlike you who think only layers of gasses made up the atmosphere.

You clearly did not know that the earth's atmosphere is layer of gases surrounding the planet earth that is retained by earth's gravity, your claimed the earth's atmosphere was formed from water. . .LOL!. . .

You misconstructed me here.
Please kindly tell me what made up the MESOPHERE the third layers of the atmosphere(even this layer is a mystery to scientist because they don't know how it formed), and remember if one layer destroyed it has a very great effect on others. Anyway this isn't the issue for today.

When did i tell you this?. . . . . .Stop going to answers in genesis to copy nonsense. . .

Are you a descendant of Adam or Ape-like?

This is just a useless claim that has no evidence. . .Life began with Shiva the Hindu goddess, pls prove that I am wrong.

That's good you've supported my claim...Hindu goddess....so far is god not unknown place 'evolution'.
Remember your claim is there's no God, how are thou unstable like moring star?

But cells themselves are alive.

Yes! because they have life in them.

They have the full characteristics of living things and they themselves are living things.

Yes, that's why they refer to them as living cells they have life in them. Cell can die(losing life) don't forget!

Cells are living things on their own. . .What did your god use in creating cells?. . .How did he create them and when did he create the fist cell?. . .How an your prove to me that your Jewish myth of a god created cells and not Shiva?

Yes they're living things on their own but life is in them, life is immaterials that's why. If someone died they refer to them as dead-absent of LIFE, if cell is life when living things die they suppose to disappear but what we see is still the same cell/trillions cells lying down with absent of LIFE.

Where this immaterial life comes from? Something came to my mind law of biogenesis "life only comes from life"

Where did I tell you that is what I believe?

Once you're apelike descendant.

What is this joke pls?

I'm not joking, am I correct please?

And dark energy supports the myth that things were spoken into existence using the Hebrew language?

I didn't say so sir.

It is not everything that is in nature that we have the ability to observes,

@bold-Now you're talking.
But you didn't complete it, it should be like .......ability to observe scientifically....lol
there're paranormal event in this nature unless you want to deceive yourself.

your mythical god is said to be supernatural, meaning he exist outside of nature. . he exists in myths and fictitious stories and claims.

Why jumped into conclusion, your answer above shows that you still lack some things about the same God. Do you know it?









Search your mind deep down.

Shalom!

Uyi Iredia: Y'all keep having fun.

My brother yes ooo just to gain more knowledge about our universe and God jare!


Quite a long time on NL?

Welcom back!

OlaAjia: Cutting long story short, you haven't read every book, so your claim is invalid!

Did I say so or you just assume?

A quick Google search will reveal a plethora religious books and ideas (eg Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism and Judaism) with creation and redemption stories.

Judaism worship the same God with Christianity while others claim different gods. Bible God claims the creator of the universe whereas others gods claim the create earth only if you read their creation account very well.

Since you have referred me to a link authored by you,

Did you find any meaningful thing there?

where you make pseudo-scientific claims that an elementary school kid will never make; that is, a circle is equal to a sphere

From that link it means the rest are correct but only this one wrong.
Well only if you can reason in line with the perspetive of the writer then you can grap the real message in that verse because that same verse refers to .....God as a grasshoppers.... I won't say anything more than that.

and light powers east wind (not even sure what that means),

The light causes the east wind to blow because the dawn heats the air that has been cooled all night. As the air cooled, it had contracted until it basically reached an equilibrium. Then when dawn creeps towards the horizon it begins to heat the air nearby, and as this air is heated it expands, causing a higher pressure than the still-cool air of the night, which makes the east wind “blow”.
We know this! God knew this! But NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT LIGHT CAUSES WIND! No one in the entire planet suspected a connection between light and wind until around 500 years ago! Until then no one really had the faintest clue how light really worked! Only God could have inspired that section of Job, probably written thirty-five CENTURIES ago! You can browse it also to comfirm it.

allow me to direct you to a link where some scientific fallacies of the Bible are addressed. And perhaps, in future, you will be more careful about using science to validate the Bible.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html

I click on the link and found many truth about Biblical unscientific accuracy but space and time won't allow me to touch many of those points. I believe any question comes from Bible can be answer through the help of the Holyspirit. Most of the points on that link has been answered by this poster in other thread.

I will only say something about the moon's light and stars.

Many people attack this very point because they misunderstood the wirter's context, firstly, anytime the Bible mentions Moon's light it will surely come/follow by Sun's light and a conjuction word 'AND' must be in between them which means the two phrases cannot be seperated from each other.

I challenge give me a verse in the Bible where It reference to Moon's light alone without Sun's light in the same verse.

Secondly, I haven't gotten the real message about stars in any books of the Bible because it's somehow figurative but most skeptics always interpret this point literally base on human's limited knowledge. We can see this in Rev 9:1-2 "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

In this verses a star fall fron heaven and it was referred to as HIM/HE so I know we can't fully understand the mystery of the word of God 'Bible' with human's knowledge now. "Mystery" in the Bible refers to something that has not yet been revealed. These mysteries are revelations of new information about God’s plan that has not yet been disclosed.

Shalom!

I left this thread because your claims didn't hold anything but I came back to answer your questions in Anony's thread here.

mazaje: I told you this when and where?. . .

Many months ago that you're Ape-like descendant.

Tell me how life began.

Life began with God

What was used in creating cells for example. . .How were cells created and what was used in creating them. . .When was the first cell created?. . .And how did you know this to be true?. . .Pls tell. . .Don't go about referring me to quote from ancient religious mythical books. . .Cos i will only laugh at you. . .

This is the mistake that most atheist make believing cells are LIFE. Now research has shown it beyond any reasonable doubt that LIFE is not part of cell, cells are just LIFE carriers. Which reseach is that? Reseach about natural death shows that cell remians intact about few hours after death.

In the process of natural death scientis descover that 1) heartbeat, breathings and circulations of blood stop first which is called clinical death, 2)four to five minutes later cells begin to die(losing energy) bit by bit which is called biological death. After someone died all the person's cell are still there only thing they observe was that there're not working anymore.
The question now is what is that partcular thing that is making those cells to work?

I have never claimed to know how life began. . .

See where you expose your ignorance but you believe only one life started it all on what you don't know its beginning..No scientist ever prove it..how will you know?

That is a question NO one knows. . .You are just happy to believe the superstition you have been indoctrinated with since childhood that's all. ..

If no one knows then evolution calim is wrong! How?

*Mazaje is the last born in their family
*Mazaje has two sisters
*mazaje is a male because I saw (m) beside his username on NL
*mazaje lives outside nigeria because I saw it on NL
*mazaje's families reside outside Denmark
*mazaje has married with two beautiful kids a boy and a girl

Please tell me maybe I'm wrong.

There is much more evidence for the big ba.ng than evidence that Yahweh spoke things into existence using the hebrew language. . .

Did you know that most physics theory are in question because of 'dark energy' now?

How does this prove that the god idea created by the ancient Jews exist in reality?

This is not the answer my question, is everything observable in nature?

OlaAjia: To make this claim, I assume you've read all other books and found it to be true? Which means no other book has stories about Creation and/or killing of god's only son exists?

Also, I can't see the scientific correlation you're talking about. Care to expatiate? What have stories about creation of the universe and killing of one's son for humanity's redemption got to do with science?

About reading other books and the truth of the God in Bible I can't say much on that because the story is long...Jesus is the only one who has died and still living today among those prominent man ever live in the past.

For science correlation check this link

https://www.nairaland.com/1305164/things-only-god-could-known

Shalom!

OlaAjia: Why is the Bible any more the word of god than the Bhagavad geetha or the Quran?

No book has ever claimed what the Bible claims i.e the creations of the universe, redeemption of humanity from death by sending His only Son, and correlated with finds of scientist to some extend even though the boos was written 4000yrs ago before explosion of knowledge which Bible also prophecies.

OlaAjia: How do you know this is "god's procedure"?

Because He said it in His word 'Bible' and God can not lie! If you fail to realised that Bible isn't the 'word of God' I'm sorry another problem will arise.

mazaje: I told you this when and where?. . .

Tell me how life began. . .What was used in creating cells for example. . .How were cells created and what was used in creating them. . .When was the first cell created?. . .And how did you know this to be true?. . .Pls tell. . .Don't go about referring me to quote from ancient religious mythical books. . .Cos i will only laugh at you. . .




I have never claimed to know how life began. . .That is a question NO one knows. . .You are just happy to believe the superstition you have been indoctrinated with since childhood that's all. ..




There is much more evidence for the big ba.ng than evidence that Yahweh spoke things into existence using the hebrew language. . .





How does this prove that the god idea created by the ancient Jews exist in reality?. . .

This your question would've be a great opportunity for me to show you the lies of evolution but I don't want to extend this discusion than this because I don't want to derail Anony's thread. I will reply you in any of my thread where a case like this may appear.

Shalom!

OlaAjia: Quote where I made such a claim.

Action speaks louder than voice!

Your definition of god will determine whether god is observable or not.

Get you now!

I look forward to the day god speaks to me. When next you communicate with god, be sure to mention me, maybe, just maybe (s)he might consider speaking with me.

If you find grace in His sight well He might consider speaking with you in your sinful nature but if He didn't, then you need to move closer to Him through total submision of your heart.

That's not a definition, it is a claim. How do I measure or observe god?

How can you say it's a claim? When all christians agreed with this one. Tell me, does definition of ENEGRY "energy is the ability to do work" correlate with your explanation about how energy can be observed? What I'm expecting you to say is what support your definition?

Measure God! When all instrument read error when measuring dark energy. Earth is God's footstood and heaven is His throne-so how can you measure such being? And this is where scientist got it wrong believeing everything can be measurable but when they encounter dark energy the reality open that not everything that is measurable also there're some things that beyond the scope of science called PARANORMAL in nature unless you just want to lie to yourself?

The alternative would have been contrary to scientific method.

Remember that some paranormal event are still profess as scientific method.

I can't answer this any more than I can answer how to prove that Santa is real.

Still on the matter, how can you prove that santa is real?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

What does this one mean?

What is God's procedure?

You must first realised that you're a sinner then grap a copy of any Bible and read it with an open mind.

It's remarkable you claim to know the truth about somebody you hardly even know.

I'm sorry about that sir.

Who says god must be a consciousness?

Me! Because He has 'spirit'.

^What?

This is what I answered to in your post "Emusan stops being abstract. So, again, energy as a stand alone word might be abstract, but the concept which it describes is far from; and as I have proven earlier, it is in fact, observable and measurable".

God stops being an abstract because He's observable as described below.

What do you mean when you say "Baptized by Holyspirit"?

Baptized means 'immerse in', so it means you immerse yourself in God's spirit(you will feel the spirit as He enveloped you, and He will talk to you and in that moment you're no more of yourself) and you will surely speak in tongues(another language) "How can science explain this process without esperience it?". Though majority that speak in tongue today are not truly speaking in tongue by God's spirit but being possesed by evil spirit.

This is a sign that God do really exist 1 Corinthians 14:22 "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

OK, I too can speak and your point is?

My point is physicist that call universe God, can universe speak?

Do you mean if there were a breakthrough in invisibility cloak research and I am able to become invisible to the human eyes, I would become a spirit?

To human being you're a spirit until you hit them while you collide with them you will know you're not a spirit. Spirit can enter your room without open your door, can you do that with invisible cloak?

Have you ever encountered a spirit?

Yes! Especially with the Holyspirit

what is soul?

Please search google or consult your dictionary for that.

mazaje: Straw man. . .When and where did I ever tell you about any first cell?

Because you believe in theory of evolution.

You do NOT know have life on earth began period.

Is it 'you' or 'we'? If it is you, well I know how life began but if it is we(atheist) then how Dawkin is so sure that only one life started it all and how does he know much about life despite that he doesn't know life origin?

That you chose to believe that some superstitious Jewish mythical invention did it is your own problem.

You call it superstition but your own that doesn't know know the origin of life is not superstition, hnmm!

By the way how do you go from the earth was created to asinine claims that the bible is the word of the creator of the universe. . .Does the character portrayed in the bible resemble an entity that can create anything talk more of the universe?

Just resemble the myth of big ba.ng ofcourse.

How does this prove that the god idea created by the ancient Jews exist in reality?. . .

Why can't you answer 'yes or no' efore you ask your own question?

Mr Troll: Emusan no offence but your posts are gibberish. You contradict yourself every time you post something new. I'm outta here. This thread is dumbing me more and more...

If my points are contracdicted, why can't you quote me and show me 'see where you contracdict yourself'.

Run as usual! Hunnnn