₦airaland Forum

Oliviaarims:
Two introverts dating...

Woman: Life has become meaningless. Nothing seems to be working. No money, no friends, no family. What's the point in living?

Man: Yea, life is meaningless. Let's die.

Woman: Nice idea, I think we should just die.

That's trash, introverts are not boring people, we actually humorous, nice, loyal to a fault, the best couple that can ever be. So stop kidding yourself.

I think as introverts you guys would make a great couple, because you would understand yourselves better, spend more time with each other than going to parties, be able to raise good children and who says you two cant have fun together.

It is great been an introvert check this out. http://introvertspring.com/love-between-two-introverts/

Na number four make sense pass

JimTiger4:
ok .....cute kid

so what next.....how does this contribute meaningfully to my life??

seriously all these celebrity ish is getting on my nerves.... dude if u must run a blog, post something that will lead to the growth and development of the reader! not crap

Abi ooo
I don tire for all this nonsense celebrity this celebrity that rubbish.

There are other impressive threads in more important sections like science, technology, religion that never get here

chukwudi44:
I have read the entire story and can't find exactly where the PDP said it didn't have money to complete its secretariat

Try to read completely, after all you claim to be smart, Igbo

“As we speak, we don’t have funds for the completion of the new secretariat. The acting chairman of the NWC would take the issue to the national caucus to know how we can engage the services of developers on some arrangements.”

obiorathesubtle:
Bro! You have Penile cancer Level 3... Bro! You need to see a Doctor!


Wait! When it happens, does your penïs get bigger? If yes! Bro.. This isn't a little case.. You need to see a doctor ASAP!


UNESCO reports 2012 estimated that about 6.3million adult males die yearly due to penile cancer.

That is a big lie.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer

Nothing wrong with you, just try to control it

chuna1985:
Ur answer suggests we possess information from same website cuz I know that stupidd answer

Cain was the only child of Adam n eve @ that point so he can't be afraid that his unborn sisters n brothers will kill him.

After Adam gave birth to Cain and Abel, it was another 130 years before he gave birth to seth, he would have had many other daughters as children which Cain would have married.

The losers have started again, one win, one draw per month. What a good time to hate Chelsea.

Teempakguy:
there have always been scientific discoveries that challenged atheism. and whenever atheism bowed, progress was always slowed down. only to discover that the challenge was a mere illusion all along.


1. LOL . . . in order for a creative designer to emerge out of the void, the calculations have to be correct to the smallest impossible fraction and it is very impossible to achieve by luck.

A creative designer emerging out of the void has nothing to do with luck. We all know that everything does not come from nothing, i.e for something to exist it must have a cause. But God doesnt have a cause because it is through him that everything came into existence, he is the uncreated creator.
Asking who created God is like asking what does blue smell like, blue is not in the category of things that have a smell in the same way God cannot be described in the category of things that exist rather He just simply exist.

2. The fact that something seems near impossible doesn't mean it's not easy to do. If you had gone back in time and told Archimedes that one day, eight year old kids would be able to solve simultaneous equations in minutes, he would have told you it's impossible. but it's actually trivial. also, if we are to assume that nothing existed before the creation of the universe, then time doesn't exist as well and all possible iterations of the calculation would be carried out instantaneously and simultaneously. hence giving rise to the universe. no matter how impossible it may seem. anyway, i require a link to your claim there so i can see things for myself.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=3726
http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The numbers are astronomical, it can be described this way when the big bang occurred everything that needed to be formed was formed at that particular instant, all the chemicals, gravity, the solar system, planets, everything that is needed for our world was formed at that particular instant.

For 2,500 years most scientists agreed with Aristotle on the idea of a steady-state universe—that the universe has always existed with no beginning and no end. But the Bible disagreed. In the 1920s, Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaitre, a theist, said that the entire universe, jumping into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command in Genesis 1:3, “Let there be light.” In other words, the origin of the universe unfolded exactly how one would expect after reading Genesis, and for 2,500 years the Bible had it right, and science had it wrong.

trust me, DNA may be complex, but it isn't irreducibly so. it is in fact made out of smaller ingredients which are themselves, simple.

A microprocessor is made from just silicon and some few additional compounds, does that make a microprocessor easy. For a computer to be built, because of the unpredictability of the movement of electrons, it has to be constructed in such a way as to make the electrons flow in a particular order, that is extremely difficult to do.
A DNA particle is extremely small that you would have to magnify a cell 1000 times to be able to see it. Yet it contains so much information, that it is impossible to be able to create that without a designer.

how about this fact. every decision you make has already been taken by your brain before you are aware of it. in other words, you don't really have a consciousness or free will. you only have the Illusion of free will. every choice you make, every thought that enters your mind, is determined by simple chemicals in your brain and it happens before you even know you are making the decision. now, think about that. does that mean that your intelligent designer just designed a bunch of really smart robots? or that we're really super smart animals with a lot of grey matter to body ratio? and er, if you were to unwrap an elephant's brain, it would wrap around the whole world three times. that doesn't imply an intelligent designer.

So you agree that an elephant's brain might have much more grey matter than that of a human, yet we are much more smarter than they are. Your arguements that there is no need for a designer to design this world faults on the fact that the only super intelligent animal is man, if evolution truly occured there would be other super inteligent animals. The data that the human brain can hold is bigger than the most powerfull computer in the world, and i should belief that this was brought about by chance as most atheists and evolutionists belief.

how do you know whether or not there is life on other planets? it's better to not assume. also, the world is not as perfect as you keep claiming. the world is in fact very very flawed. there are many problems with the universe both scientifically and morally. one scientific example is the value of pi. the perfect value would be three. but instead, your "perfect creator" went ahead to design pi as a transcendental number? and then went on to say in his holy book that the value of pi is three? that's fraud!

It is really funny that we are still searching for evidence since 1966 when the SETI project was launched and till today no conclusive evidence, billions of dollars that could have been used to feed thousands of children are being wasted on a fruitless search. Not even a dead bacteria has been found despite the search.
The bible is not a mathematical textbook. The value of pi you are talking about is taken by skeptics in the book of 1 Kings 7:23 which describes how Hiram “made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference” (a cubit is about 18 inches in length). The book of kings talks about the kings in Israel as at that time, it wasnt God who said the value of Pi is 3 as described in the book.

And how does the value of Pi make the world a less perfect place?

The late heavy bombardment was 300 million years long. this is basically a whole 300 million years of catastrophe. yes, it's very likely that one of them caused life. the probability is screaming for recognition.

Seriously, a catasrophe every second for 300 million years, that is great but do you agree with me that everything needs a cause. The energy needed for such catasrophe that formed the world would be enormous and taking that it has been happening for 300 million years means energy that the value would be so difficult to calculate.
Where would the source of this energy be?
How would it obey the second law of thermodynamics which states that In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases. This means that the total amount of energy in a room remains the same, it follows the point that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but transformed from one form to another. It would mean for such catastrophe to occur that the energy in the closed system (universe) would have to be so enormous and difficult to understand.

yeah right. let the bowl of garri be as large as a galaxy. and come back at tell me that nothing will happen.

also, The earth is not a closed system. so the law applies not.

Thanks for that word, if the earth is a closed system, then there would have to be enormous energy in it for evolution to have occured and it would be difficult for any atheist to explain how it would obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Teempakguy:
LOL.

okay, lemme just reply this.
even for nature, it's extremely difficult to make anything think like the human brain. that is why we are the only species with our level of intelligence. and it also took over four billion years after the earth was formed for us to come into existence. shows you how complex we are. you cannot say that because we cannot explain or reproduce the human mind, God must exist. people thought the same of the solar system. now, we know perfectly how the solar system works and it's no longer ascribed to God. science is just a few hundred years old. you can't expect it to be able to do everything. because we're all in a process of learning and doing things. God is just a fairy tale that people use to explain what they don't understand.

The latest scientific discoveries challenge the school of thought of atheism.

1. The big bang theory proves that for the big bang to have created the universe, the calculations have to be correct to the smallest impossible fraction. A mathematician calculated it to a very impossible value 100000000000000000000000000000000th and am not even close to it. This itself proves that there must be a creative designer involved, something of this probability would be almost impossible to achieve by luck.

2. The discovery of DNA made a life long atheist change his mind about atheism
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
Cause DNA is very complex, it actually acts like an operating system, now as a computer scientist, that really got me.

3. The mystery of the human brain, the fact that if the neurons in our brains were gotten out they would wrap the whole world. The evidence suggests that this was not just dumb luck but a carefully designed job.

yes . . . i admit this world we created was designed by something. however, it is not necessarily so. we were designed by evolution anyway. but, even evolution is not needed. you really don't need to design somethings before they happen. electrons have been know to be completely unpredictable. nothing causes their motion or position. that wasn't designed. yet it happens. anyway, you don't seem to get this. the world as we know it did not come from nothing. it was the basic building blocks that came from nothing. mere quarks. 13 billion years of constant interaction transformed them into what we are today.

So where exactly did those electrons come from?
Why hasn't the interactions in other planets given to live over there?
Truly electrons are unstable and can't be predicted, but an unpredictable quantity could not have created a perfect world without a few flaws. Even carefully created objects come with human flaws not to talk of a series of unpredictable interactions by electrons.

exactly. the ant hill was built by ants. now, let us consider the ants themselves as a sort of hill. the ants would then have been built by cells. and those cells, would have been built by protein. and those proteins would have been built by the highly reactive carbon.

obviously. as of now, carbon has formed over nine million different compounds. let's say we find out how to synthesize 100 complex compounds every year, it would take ninety thousand years to find out how to synthesize all of them. life is a combination of one or more of these compounds. you know, i would refer to this as a P=NP problem. it is somewhat easier to find out if something is alive than to actually find out what makes it alive. so, given that modern science is only about five hundred years years old, i think you're being too hasty sir.

I wouldn't go as much as challenging you on the carbon concept, I do not av much idea in that. You said it would take 90000 years to synthesise which I think you mean like artificially create this compounds. That means it us extremely complex to do. How then is it that such difficult things is done by a lucky event or catastrophe?

so . . . because newton's first law is consistent, god must exist. sir, as a computer scientist, you MUST recognize the logical fallacy here.

Newton's law here explains that nothing can change its position, i.e electrons would keep moving up and down except if they are being forced to move their energies into a particular direction. If you put a cup of water and a bowl of garri and leave it on the table for 10 billion years nothing would happen, the garrison would in no way get actracted to the water and mix with it.

Newtons law is not the only one that faults evolution, the second law of thermodynamics is also a big headache for evolutionists.

Teempakguy:
Well, you're not a painting, are you?

Let me ask you a better question.

if you came across a termite hill, would you assume that God put the termite hill there just because you didn't know the termites made the hill themselves?

of course not.

you see, a painting is different from you. you predate paintings. at least, your species predates paintings. so, paintings are designed to look nice to you by the people who paint them. the universe on the other hand, predates you. YOU, are <b>designed</b> to think the universe looks nice. and you, my friend, are an entire civilization of microorganisms. which are in fact made of simpler chemicals. which are made of simpler and simpler . . .
you're not a painting. neither are you a building. you're a collection of cells. which are collection of chemicals.

No God needed here.

I am a computer scientist and I would tell you that one of the hardest parts in computer science is to make a computer think like a human.

The word designed shows that you admit that we are built by something, a design or a painting don't just come to be by mistake. Something must do it, this world is just too complex to be created by nothing.

An ant hill was obviously built by something which is the ants, do you know that the building block of live, the DNA consists of 8000 chemicals arranged in the right proportion, try combining two chemicals with the right quantity to form a new substance and you would know that it is not beans.

We have achieved a lot in science and technology, yet we are no close to cracking a simple task which is create live from chemicals. We know the contents but can't still arrive at a formula to do it.

Since the time of our existence in this world Newton's first law has always held "a body would remain at rest or constant motion except acted by an external force."

We are the greatest evidence of God.

macof:
Lol what the apostles believed is really unknown. All the scripts available are unreliable.
You still owe ur christian self to the romans who hijacked the cult and transformed it from a jewish sect into an European religion
The new testament is a product of the Catholic Church
All pre-catholic jesus oriented ideas are today unknown, even the gnostics were hunted down

If the new testament is a product of the catholic church, how come it speaks against most of their tradition. You can never see anyone worshipping Mary stature or praying with the help of rosaries. Nor do u hear trash about praying for a sinner after death.

macof:
Can you show where this was called against in the new testament

ROM 1:25
Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen

I cor 10:20-21
No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Haven't you asked yourself, have you ever seen a stature of Moses before. Worshipping statures is a sin in the bible

Exodus 20:1 -10
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...

plaetton:
Lol.
I know everything about the dead sea scrolls, without having to read wiki.

Still, what exactly is your point by invoking the dead sea scrolls ?

You said d bible is just a babble and that it is a fiction formed by people but the dead sea scrolls prove you wrong.
It has been carbon dated to prove its age which tallies with what is written in the bible.

We just have to pray that our struggle do not end in failure

Teempakguy:
And yet you have absolutely no proof of what you are now saying.


the ability of you theist people to speak a lot of crap without fear is . . . amazing.

And you have proof that there is no God. If you saw a painting on the wall, just because you don't know who put it there does that mean there was no painter

plaetton:
Another Rubbish.
So, is the dead sea scrolls your bible, or has it been incorporated into your bible ?

You have no sense so far.

Due to the poor condition of some of the Scrolls, not all of them have been identified. Those that have been identified can be divided into three general groups:

some 40% of them are copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible,
approximately another 30% of them are texts from the Second Temple Period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and
the remaining roughly 30% of them are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Try to use Google once in a while it helps us from spewing rubbish.

OZAOEKPE:
The same catholic that gave you the Bible you are using today, you must be taking malta weed.

The catholic church his the bible from common man as according to them only the priests can understand it. It was the protestants that God used to get us the bible from them.

plaetton:
Meaningless Babble from the wishful thinking of a fragmented mind.

It's funny how Christians arrogate to themselves the prerogative to redefine Christianity and rewrite history wherever it suits them.

The Catholic church chose,compiled, redacted, edited, canonized, and till this day, hold the original manuscripts of your Holy Babble, I mean bible.

It is they, not you ignorant sheeple, that hold the keys to understanding scripture in the proper and original contexts.

When you say what you do not know or fail to understand this is d rubbish that comes out. Did you know of the dead sea scrolls that was discovered in 1947. Or it was the Catholics who discovered that also.

The book of the new testament clearly does not favour the catholic traditions, as you can see by the post of the OP. If they revised it wouldn't it have been wise to change the bible to favour them.

The bible aka word of God has existed for thousands of years and it still remains the same which is a proof that our God is a living God. There have been many threats to distroy the word of God but they all failed.

plaetton:
True.

So, now we know that Mother Church is a contrived fraud.

But are we smart enough to figure out and conclude that all her now dysfunctional children were therefore, also begotten of fraud, or are we going to go into cognitive dissonance mode, and try to prove that bible, compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church, is now much trueer than the Catholic Church ?

My point, my little thinking friend, is that if you indict the Mother Church, you indict the entire Church, the entire edifice of the Christian faith.

Catholic church is a fraud no doubt but it is far from the mother church, it hid the truth for as long as possible until God raised men who exposed the truth and their reign of terror and impunity was over.
The mother church is the church of the apostles which is found in the new testament. We Christians follow what is written there not what catholic idolaters says.

frank317:
You really dont know who created the world and you are busy shouting God! God! God. You just fill in every unknown answer with God and your delusion starts from there

So who created the world.

The height of madness

Gayjesus:
Atheists don't go on evangelism trying to convert everyone they meet. sometimes on a bus in Nigeria some people get up with bibles in their hands to make noise from start to finish of the journey. You people try to brainwash everybody with your religion and get pissed off when put in your place. You are free to practice your religion while others are free to criticize.

One thing is sure,the Earth was not created by a god,we have seen clues from the formations of volcanic mountain and the planet earth is no different to them.

So who created the mountains, or is it big bang we should belief where the odds of that are ten times a trillion to one. Keep living in a dream world, it is very easy to be an atheist anyway, you live your life like you are not accountable to anyone, only if it were true.

johnydon22:
Let me assume there is an anthropomorphical creator of this universe somewhere and that creator is interested in human affairs.

If you think the creator of the vast universe is interested in these magnificent edifices summing up to billions while this

[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6YGavZ1wSA3G26C_vlVCaPZzp4sF9gvtt6B4BvDSfKqgBGgRPzEt92Tw[/img]
happens all over the planet..

Then you must be fvcking out out your God damn mind...

You keep talking about people suffering, how have you helped the begged in your street. You talk what you do not understand,

James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Mat. 25:34 "Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, 'Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. Mat. 25:35 For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes; Mat. 25:36 naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me.' Mat. 25:37 "Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you anything to drink? Mat. 25:38 Or a stranger, and help you? Or naked, and clothe you? Mat. 25:39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' Mat. 25:40 "And I, the King, will tell them, 'When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!' Mat. 25:41 Then I will turn to those on my left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. Mat. 25:42 For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; Mat 25:43 a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' Mat. 25:44 "Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' Mat 25:45 "And I will answer, 'When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me.' Mat. 25:46 "And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life."

There is enough that God has created for us that can fill all the belies of poor people around us. It is because of greediness and lack of fear of God that makes the word the way it is today

plaetton:
I was referring the Nigerian-educated ignorant fadman4real.

97% to 99.9% of scientists in the entire world accept the theory of evolution.

The theory has withstood 150 yrs of rigorous scientific testing, without a single refutation.

The theory of evolution has practical applications bin fields of medicine, drug discovery, agriculture, genetic research, anthropology, paleontology, etc.

Only modern brainfxxxd religiotards have a deep ongoing trouble with the theory of evolution, and for obvious reasons.

Firstly it is 99.9 percent of american earth and life scientists that belief in evolution not all scientists in the world. Let me list a few of the notable scientists who have changed the world and do not belief in evolution

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

And noteworthy the head of the Human Genome Project in United States Francis Collins is a christian. The study of plants, animals, climate doesnt have anything to do with evolution. with all the advancement of science evolution scientists cannot still create a living cell from non living things. I am supposed to just belief that somehow 8000 chemicals arranged themselves to form a DNA, wow that is just crazy.

plaetton:
And what you.learn in church defines your worldview?
That makes you the equivalent of a medieval churchtian , not a modern human.

I wonder why church doesn't produce medicines for you or hybrid high-yielding crops to feed you.

Evolution produces medicines for you and hybrid high-yielding crops which feed you.

Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present. A recent incredible discovery may put to rest that criticism.

A secondary issue must first be considered. Is it reasonable to expect such artifacts or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and eventually suffered the death of a common outlaw. Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not.

Actually, Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large and extensive Roman cities, and adequate inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate and Festus. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but almost nothing can be found recording the lives of ordinary individuals. And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. Certainly the odds are against an artifact's survival.

The scarcity of archaeological artifacts can be contrasted, however, with the wealth of historical evidence for Christ. Soon the apostles had written letters detailing Christ's life and teachings, to be followed by the writings of Paul all widely copied and circulated, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name.

The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.

There are other noteworthy writers who were not Christians who gave evidence of Christ

Evidence from Tacitus
Tacitus was a Roman historian that wrote on Nero the Roman king blaming Christians for the fire that destroyed rome.
"Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome"

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence can be found from the letters of Pliny the younger to emperor Trajan. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared."

Although some scholars still argue that Josephus couldn't have written that that it could have been altered by a christian because Josephus was not a christian and therefore he would not have said that "if indeed one ought to call him a man"

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from Babylonial Tamud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua" is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the talmud declares that Jesus Christ was crucified on the eve of passover.

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.


Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

The question I ask those who do not belief in Jesus is that "People would die for what is the truth but not for what they know to be a lie" that to me is the greatest proof of Christianity. What exactly did the disciples gain by preaching the message of christ, most of them died very poor and they were all tormented unto the days of their death. There were several converts during the days of the apostles, would it be possible for me and a group of people to invent someone and begin shouting and preaching about someone who never existed. That would be madness, and there is no way a lie like that would have been able to exist up to this day.

Logicalsoul:
And I hope your religious text brought about phone? Please read to digest..

So evolution brought you yours, science and religion are not in conflict it is only people that makes it sound like that, some great scientists were belivers.

I only claimed that learning evolution or not doesn't change anything.

plaetton:
Poor comprehension skills.

A good example of the very poor educational system just mentioned.

Lol. Only if you knew me, we all learn about evolution in schools and we learnt about the story of creation in churches.

So your thread makes no sense whatsoever

aaronson:
Actually,In the real sense, its fools like you he's trying to give knowledge of self and hope.

Which knowledge of self and hope are you saying, I should belief a lie simply because it is the easiest path.

Freemanan:
Bigot....

This is how Jihad started...

Really Jihad, am not a Muslim so I am not a Jihad. I am a Christian and my hope is in Christ.

You believe dere is no judgement after death, that is a very sweet and easy path to take only if it were true. I know the truth and the truth would set me free.

Can't you see that they are burning in hell, it is probably a message about end time.