₦airaland Forum

cyrexx: he didn't fail, but some people will never change their long held beliefs based on their Bible or Quran, no matter the contrary evidence that proves them wrong. maybe because they dont want to offend their God that will send them to hell for not believing the holy book.

He failed to provide concrete evidence for the theory of evolution or the alleged non-existence of God. And even if the theory is entirely true, its not contrary to my faith and not a proof that God doesn't exist.

Yes. The LORD knows you tried to argue against his existence...but failed as should be expected.

OLAADEGBU: No wonder, Mary must be weeping right now when she sees what folks are doing to idolise her. The Scriptures speaks for itself.

A weak attempt to deviate from the topic of discussion (in true olaadegbu fashion)

OLAADEGBU: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:19)

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mark 6:3)

"For neither did his brethren believe in him" (John 7:5).

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren" (Acts 1:14).

No, don't stop there. Let's see more verses where the Bible uses the word "adelphos (brother)" and see if he always meant it to be 'a male sibling.'

Acts 2: 37: "when the people heard this, they were deeply troubled and said to Peter and other apostles, 'what shall we do, BROTHERS?"

These people were Jews(people who practised Judaism) in their thousands and had come from every country in the world. How can they all then be siblings of the apostles? "Brothers" here meant 'fellow Jews.'

Acts 7: 2: "Stephen answered, "Brothers and Fathers..."

Stephen was talking to the members of the council who would kill him immediately after the speech. The were only his country men, not his siblings.

Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, as the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew.

Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish.

These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22). 

OLAADEGBU: The suggested link below gave a better explanation to the misconceptions about the above.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

You're just recycling what you said before that has been debunked and clarified.

The argument in the link you gave is even weaker than your earlier comments, that's probably why you can't type out excerpts of it here.

1) Spiritual beings do not exist. Calling God a spiritual being does not make him any more real than a tooth fairy

2) All animals have a universal common ancestor. We came from single celled organisms. Repeated speciation and anagenisis created the diversity of life we have here. Scientists, unlike religious folks, do not claim that they know everything. Scientists do not know the exact method of how these single celled orgamisms appeared (There are ideas on that). However, we know that we came from single celled organisms from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits (DNA) between animals. The closer the species or common ancestor, the more similar the traits are between animals. It simply means that the diversity in traits like dna become less similar as go back in time between different species to a basic single celled organism.


Please read more;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution


https://www.deborahstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/treeolife3.jpg[/quote]Atheist! Is this what you call "concrete evidence" that you evolved from a fish?

I ask for evidence that a theory is true and what do you do?

You practically state out the theory.

Italo: what's the evidence that there is a brain in your miserable skull?

Logicboy: there is a brain in my miserable skull.

How does that sound?

Really dumb.

And which "religious folk" ever claimed to know everything?

Or have you resorted again to shameful lies?

logicboy: Lies. When did I say that Atheist = Smart/civilized? Show me where I made that statement. You are suffering from inferiority complex and that is why you feel that atheists are smarter than you. Go and read some books on evolution
You like Vedaxcool now, you should see what he says about christians.

Nowhere did I say that you SAID so. I said you THINK so. How is it that you do not know the difference between these two simple words. Or am I right in thinking that you don't even THINK in the first place? And where did I say I LIKE Vedaxcool? I am beginning to think that you're mentally ill... Even if Vedaxcool says nasty things about Christianity, it doesn't mean I should hate or dislike him. I can only, at the worst, hate or dislike his comment. And when he says things that I agree with, I can like his comment. I don't even hate you. What I feel for you is pity. How can I feel inferior to one who doesn't even know the difference between "SAY" and "THINK"? I'm not also mad.

logicboy: Lies, you ignorantly assumed that I have never seen a fossil because you were projecting your sad life on me in which you have never been to a science museum to see fossils.

Yes, I assumed. But assumption is not a bad thing and it is not compatible with certainty. You cannot "assume" when you are "certain", and if you are not certain of something, then I think, you are ignorant of it. So to say that I "ignorantly assumed" is tautology to me. And if you look again at my post, perhaps this time in your 5mins of sanity, you will notice a question mark...which means, I only asked a QUESTION, afterall. And, yes! I have never been to a science museum. What's the problem in that? I can't go everywhere and see everything and neither can anyone else. I'm sure I've been to places you'll never see, but what does it matter. Besides, the fact that you SAY you've been to a science museum doesn't mean you've been there. There's no proof of it.

logicboy: Furthermore, there are 2 things I would like to repeat

1) There is enough proof of evolution

Then go ahead and prove to me that you evolved from a fish.

[quote author=logicboy]2) There is no single proof of God not one. You can prove the existence of a spiritual being and that is why it is called "faith". It seems that you have never heard the arguments against your cause.

So you know that God is a spiritual being. And that you can't prove the existence of a spiritual being. Good.

1. What is a spiritual being and how did you come to the conclusion that God is one.

2. How did you come to the conclusion that you can't prove the existence of a spiritual being?

OLAADEGBU: What stopped the writers of the Scriptures from using the word cousin instead of brothers? Afterall Elizabeth was referred to as a cousin of Mary. Don't tell me what you think the Bible means so as to suit your own church tradition and dogma.

The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Greek word for which is "anepsios." The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is "suggenes" (pronounced su-gen-ace), which simply means "kinswoman" or "relative". It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word "suggenes" is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary's. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word. It was inaccurate and unwarranted for KJV to translate the word as "cousin."

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as "adelphos", which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, "anepsios", but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

the Greek has a word for cousin, but even in the Septuagint they did not use this Greek word for cousins whenever cousins came up.

OLAADEGBU: There are many people with the names Mary, James and Joses but the Scriptures made it clear who His brothers and sisters were.

But there are only TWO apostles called 'James'. The Bible cornered you on that one. None of those two were born by Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

"For neither did his brethren believe in him" (John 7:5).

And if you've been misled into believing that this means relative see the above verse was the fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy below:

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children" (Psalm 69:8.)

Reading further, verse 11 says:

"When I put on sackcloth, people make sport of me."

The "sackcloth" signifies repentance. Jesus did not wear sackcloth literally and he could not have worn it figuratively because he never sinned so he didn't need repentance.

Verses 27, 28: ...do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous."

The same Jesus who came for the salvation of the world, who said "...Father, forgive them..." could not have said the above.

Think!

vedaxcool: Threads like this are proof enough why atheism is just another delusion the devil successfully foisted upon mankind, when some one becomes an atheist so that whitemen would look down upon him is evidently laughable, Italo I am compelled to say your points are very cogent and shows more logic that some pretend to have.

thanks.

He thinks that being an Atheist is equivalent to being smart and civilized...and believing in God means you're dumb and crude.

Such poor and immature reasoning.

logicboy: You believe that Italo's points are very cogent? Here is a summary of his points;

-Evolution has not been proven (Fossils, current human evolution, observable evolution in animals all exist)

All these are no proof that I evolved from a fish! The Theory of Evolution remains a THEORY. It might contain facts, but it might also contain fallacies.

-God has been proven (No physical proof of God exists)

There are physical proofs. You just don't accept them. Billions of other people accept them.

-Facts are not always true

Yes! Perhaps I should have typed: "facts" as many people see it, are not always true. Who determines what is a "fact"? Human beings...and humans beings can be dubious and are imperfect. There are many historical and scientific "facts" that have later been found to be false.

-He tried to argue that I havent seen a fossil out of ignorance about science museums.

I never argued that you hadn't seen a fossil, liar. I only asked if you had seen one. You call everyone else "ignorant" but you cant spot the difference between the two. And the fact that there are science museums doesn't mean that you have visited one.

logicboy: It is very sad that there are many Nigerians who are proudly ignorant like them.


Can you imagine the dummy called Italo saying that it was a fact that the earth was flat in the past? Just because christians accepted it doesnt make it fact.

Who refuted it? Even Atheists accepted it.

Ptolomeus: I ask you, if you are married ...
And if you are married, also if you are a virgin ...
You feel normal to be married and virgin?
I do not think so ...

I am not married but I know many Catholics (at least) who have remained virgins despite being married.

"Normal?"

We were all born virgins, weren't we?

logicboy: You are purposefully ignorant. There is no redemption for you. Sadly, it is people like you who are a majority in Nigeria.

Try something new, please! Of course, by now, you, LOGIC boy should know that I will not be cowed by insults.

logicboy: You ask me to prove what has been proven and is already self evident. Do you deny that you dream? Hav millions of people not recounted their dreams? Are there not ECG monitors to show spike brain activities during dreams?

I don't deny that God is... And billions of people have "recounted" their experiences with God. Should we then take it as proof of the existence of God and end the argument? ECG or EEG monitors might indicate brain activities but they cannot conclusively prove that a man dreamt or did not dream. Only the man can say, and I have met one or two Atheists who say they don't dream. Besides, have you ever used an ECG or EEG monitor to observe brain activity, or you just have FAITH in what scientists told you?

logicboy: You ask for proof of love which is also self evident if you have been in love or have family close to you. There are different kinds of love. There actions that are related to love. When I said facial expressions, I clearly mentioned "in love" but your ignorance let you to ask about love between mother and child. Love is actually chemistry + biology, hormones and brain activity.

To cut your long garbage short: what irrefutable evidence can you give to show that you love your mother? If you cannot provide one, can we then agree that you don't love her?

logicboy: Anger is self evident you and everybody else have been angry at one point or the other. To ask for proof is pure stupidity. How do you know if someone is angry? Facial expressions, animated movements, loud or harsh voice etc. Anger can also cause the adrenaline rush to shoot up beforte a fight.

How do you know I have ever been angry? Have you ever seen me? Don't tell me you BELIEVE without seeing. If you think asking for proof of anger is "pure stupidity" then asking for proof of God is evidence of mental illness. I believe a person can have whatever "facial expression", "animated movements", "loud or harsh voice" and "adrenaline rush" without being angry. So how do all these prove that a man is angry?

logicboy: I will repeat, it is because of willfully ignorant scums like you that make Nigeria a real sad place to live.

Stale!

logicboy: -There are no science museums for our children to learn evolution because ignorant people hate it because it debunks their religion

Evolution doesn't debunk my religion.

logicboy: -There is no separation of church and state and hence no equality and freedom

There is no equality and freedom anywhere in the world. Including Atheist China and Cuba...and even in the US and UK.

logicboy: -There is no history taught to our children on slavery so that islam and christianity can be protected.

I was taught history of slavery in school, here in Nigeria.

logicboy: You sir are a fool. Ironic when the bible says that a man who says in his heart there is no God is a fools. The biggest fools in Nigeria are fanatic christians and muslims

Is this your best shot? You're even poor at hurling insults. What are you good at?

You sound angry, but I doubt really are. I think you're just pretending to be angry. Because there's no CONCRETE EVIDENCE.

Ptolomeus: Joseph was a virgin?

Likely

Ptolomeus: Mary a consecrated virgin?

Surely

Ptolomeus: You have any proof of that? A biblical passage stating that?
Or is it just something you say you crave?

In addition to what we know from sacred tradition, these verses indicate that Mary was a perpetual virgin:

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

when Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive a child, she says to him in Luke 1:34, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" We are told seven verses before that when this happened she was "a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph." She was already engaged, knew she was to be married, is visited by an angel who tells her she will have a Son, and she acts bewildered, as though it's an impossibility because she "knows not a man." She's not confused that she will bring forth a Son who "shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"; she is confused that she will bring forth a son at all! She doesn't "get it" because she knows she is a consecrated virgin and will not "know a man!" She is confused that she will have a son at all!

Ptolomeus: We return to the theory that Joseph was gay and Mary lesbian ... That also would explain it.
Serious!

You are free to return to whatever you like... In your head.

Ptolomeus: Dear friend Italo:
Are you married?
If you are, I guess I never had sex with his wife right?
Excuse me ... that I Smile... but I think even you believe in what he said.

Who will translate this to English for me?

Even the ever-efficient 'Google Translate' couldn't help.

Ptolomeus: I already have explained to you, but you you worried for my English.
You have a problem of analysis?
You ask why?
possibilities:
1. Joseph was g.ay, did not like women and therefore did not have se.x with Mary.
2. Mary was fri.gid and did not want to have se.x with a man.
3. Mary was a les.bian, did not like men.
I rule out other possibilities such as lack of love and desire, as ultimately married.
Married then what? To watch cartoons on TV?
Use you brain a bit and you'll upgrade your analytical performance.

@Logicboy Thank you very much for supporting my English.
A hug!

Ptolomeus: I already have explained to you, but you you worried for my English.
You have a problem of analysis?
You ask why?
possibilities:
1. Joseph was g.ay, did not like women and therefore did not have se.x with Mary.
2. Mary was fri.gid and did not want to have se.x with a man.
3. Mary was a les.bian, did not like men.
I rule out other possibilities such as lack of love and desire, as ultimately married.
Married then what? To watch cartoons on TV?
Use you brain a bit and you'll upgrade your analytical performance.

@Logicboy Thank you very much for supporting my English.
A hug!

It is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

In Luke 1:31,34, the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

OLAADEGBU: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him[/b]." (Mark 6:3)

Find your James and Joses in the verse below:

Matt 27: 56: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Their mother is not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

Only if folks would read their Bibles with the guidance of Christ's Church instead of being indoctrinated by their own whims and inclinations that have no place in the Holy Scriptures.[/quote]

logicboy: Facts are not necessarily true? Why do you chose to remain ignorant? Before Galileo, it was a fact that the earth was flat. But it wasn't true.

[quote author=logicboy]I have seen a fossil. It's because of christian idiots like you that we dont have science museums in Nigeria with fossils on evolution. I am really starting to dislike your thinking. It is very toxic. People like you never bring progress.

Great! You have seen a fossil! So it should be easy for you to talk about the test you carried out on it and how you came to conclusions on details like its age and how that fossil proves that you evolved from a fish. *Pls don't just repeat what you've been told and you BELIEVE*

All these insults... Are they meant to scare me into submission?

logicboy: I am not blind or deaf or dumb. I can perceive things. You thinking is quite irrelevant unless you are saying that atheists, agnostics and unbelievers are blind, which is very foolish.

I didn't say that atheists, agnostics and unbelievers are blind. It is you who just said so.

I only asked you to tell me how I can prove to a blind man that the sky is blue, but you'd rather not answer.

OLAADEGBU: Are you sure that it wasn't consumated?

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:19)

Here one of Jesus' siblings sired by the union of Joseph and Mary.

OLAADEGBU: I am referring to James, the Lord's step brother.

Only two of Jesus' apostles were named James.

James the brother of John, whose parents are Zebedee and Salome...and James whose mother is Mary of Clopas.

Clearly, none of these is a sibling of Jesus.

dekung: @Italo,
hmmm! I like your argument but I unfortunately do not sense so much honesty in it. Science tells me if I jump from the rooftop I must hit the ground, science taught me about force and other phenomenon which are testable. Science taught about energy, waves and the totality of how nature functions. Religion on the other hand tells me about spirits, heaven, hell, angels, God, Demons, curses and a load of other things that cannot be hernessed, tested and used by just anyone. I am sure you are typing with an electronic gadget and you make phone calls everyday. I dont need to tell to have faith or carry out some tasks before thee things could wrk, just follow simple testable instructions and vwualla, ur gadgets are working. Tell me honestly, how many people pray with all their hearts yet never get answers. Now compared that to how many people make phone calls per day and do not get expected service. You talked about dreams, thoughts and emotions. All these phenomenon are all functions of what goes on in ur brain. If science eventually perfects the art of brain transplant (if the church will allow it) and our brains are swapped, u wld start to reason like me. While you cannot measure thots and emotions the results of these phenomenon can be seen. We may not be able to see evolution in full bloom because it takes a very loooooong time to pull through, we can still see micro evolution like the ones I described above. Even as an agnost, I never believd in evo, but after taking a cusory look at nature and its diversity, I couldnt help but agree with the promoters of evo

I thought you would point out exactly where I was dishonest. All the things that religion (at least mine) teaches can be experienced by anyone. They just need to have to necessary tools to do so. Like you mentioned, you need to follow some simple instructions for your gadgets to work. So also you need to follow simple instructions and have certain tools to experience God. Can I make a call where there is no reception? No. Can I use my phone without power to charge it? No. Can I make a call if I don't have a phone? No. So also, you cannot experience God in a fruitful way if we don't have faith and humility among other things. Are you ready to follow these instructions and acquire these tools? No. How then can you get results. You are only like a man who expects to make a phone call with a hair drier.

Reading through the 2nd half of your post, I can see that you haven't furnished me with any concrete evidence to show that we humans, in fact, evolved from fishes. Also, you agreed to the existence of dreams, thoughts and emotions even though there is no concrete evidence of it. You're just putting up very weak defences. DO YOU DREAM? IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, DO YOU HAVE CONCRETE PROOF? IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, CAN WE THEN AGREE THAT YOU CAN BE SURE THAT SOMETHING EXISTS WITHOUT CONCRETE "EVIDENCE"?

Also, you didn't say if you've simulated electromagnetic waves before or you just BELIEVE scientists.

logicboy: 1) You experience and see your dreams

How can you prove that you "experience and see" your dreams to someone who swears that you don't dream?

logicboy: 2) You feel the adrenaline rush wen you get angry.

How can you prove to me that you have an adrenaline rush, and that the adrenaline rush signifies anger and not some other emotion?

For all I know, one can pretend to have an adrenaline rush, or he can feel aroused and say he is angry.

logicboy: 3) You can feel the dfferent kinds of love. There arefacial expressions when people are in love together. When you want to have sex, your hormones are in action and you feel the manhood come to life or the pussycat get wet

How can you prove to me that you feel a particular kind of love or the other? So facial expressions are your evidence for love? So what facial expression should I expect to see on you to show you love your mother, and which one to show you love your country?

logicboy: You are just blatantly ignorant

One thing I'm sure I'm ignorant of is 'whether you have a brain, and if you do, whether you think with it.' I doubt both because you are yet to prove it.

OLAADEGBU: Are you sure that it wasn't consumated?

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:19)

Here one of Jesus' siblings sired by the union of Joseph and Mary.

So which James (apostle of Jesus) are you talking about now?

Is it the one whose brother is John, whose father is Zebedee?

Or is it the one whose mother is Mary of Clopas (not to be confused with Mary, the mother of Jesus)?

Tell us.

dekung: Well, while I hate to engage people in argument, I would love to posit the with the arguments on evolution and scientific guesses with the following questions:
1. What is the cause of Sickle Cell in humans?
2. What cuases pathogenic bacteria and germs to develop resistance to certain drugs over time?
3. Why do foetus of all primates, humans inclusive, have furry coating on their skins but humans shed theirs before birth?
4. How come all primates have appendix but is very well enlarged in other plant eating or foraging primates but significantly shrunk in humans?
I would also like to say here for all opponents of evolution that the Bible actually silently proposed evo. Why? If for the sake of argument I choose to believe the creation story, we were told that God created only Adam and Even. While we were not told the actual race of people that God created, were can see today that the humans have evolved into several races with distinct features. This same argument goes for other animals like the bears, canine, feline, reptile etc. Religion/christianity began the theory of human evolution from Adam, Science on the other hand takes it much further than Adam.
@OP, the story you posted up there is very old has been debunked as a hoax because that conversation never took place.
@italo, while it is true that just because you cannot feel, touch or sense something does not neccessaarily negate its existence but once it has been known or argued to exist then it must be provable and measurable and usable. You cant see, touch or feel electromagnetic waves with you physical senses but once it was discovered, it had been simulated (proved), measured and used for d benefit of all. The God theory on the other hand has not been proven or measures empirically by diverse groups, only religious and faith based groups have claimed beyond doubts that the entity exists. Some claim here that science is also faith based, I will beg to disagree. Faith say 'Believing is seeing', Science says 'seeing is believing'.

Firstly, I am not entirely against the evolution theory. I think some of its propositions could be true but I don't think that there is proof that humans evolved from fishes. Please give me proof of that if you have it.

If you say anything that has been known or argued to exist must be provable, measurable and usable, what about dreams, thought, emotions, do they exist or not? And are they usable, provable and measurable?

Have you simulated and measured electromagnetic waves before or do you just have FAITH in what scientists say? Be honest.

The existence of God has been proved empirically by diverse groups. Religious and faith-based groups are diverse. They include scientists, business people, sports people, soldiers, philosophers etc.

My faith doesn't tell me that "believing is seeing." I wonder where you got that from...

Mr 'I can't see, touch, hear, taste or smell, so it doesn't exist.'

Are there dreams? Is there love, hate, etc? Do people forget things? Do you really believe what you say? (Its possible you're just pretending)
Is there proof for all these?

If you can't provide sensory proof, should we then say that all those are lies?

logicboy: This amount of willful ignorance and stupidity requires a lot of patience and debunking.


1) There are crypts from medieval times and Mummies from Eqyptian pyramids.

For crypts;

-Wealthy families were the ones that used crypst. Family emblems, markings and artifacts compared with the history of the place help to piece the dating and the people who are buried there

-Carbon dating

For mummies;
-The hieroglyphics and the history of the Egyptians are used to piece together who the mummies were. Ancient Egyptian Kings and priests like Ramses/Seti 1 have been found

-Carbon dating.

2) Carbon dating is a well tested technique. Science does not just guess. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journals on each scientific technique or theory. Carbon dating is clearly not 100% accurate but has a calculated margin of error.


3) Why is it that Christians are only skeptical about science when it negates their religion? No one questions germ theory or theory of gravity but the theory of evolution is false? Remember that before germ theory was established, christians were believing that God could cure illnesses

So now that we choose to reason like you, its "willful ignorance". Its a good thing you know.

All these things you mentioned are not 100% certain. "Germ theory", "gravity"... They might be true...or FALSE.

Which of these things have you seen and touched before?

logicboy: It is a fact that wisdom teeth are useless. 35% of the population do not even grow wisdom teeth. Why do christians like yourself hate to accept facts? Dont you feel ashamed for lying?

It is not a fact that wisdom teeth are useless. How many wisdom teeth have you monitored, to find out if they are useful or useless? You certainly haven't monitored mine. Are you just working with FAITH in what you have been told?

[quote author=logicboy]Furthermore, I was talking about medieval times of which there are crypts in which they are buried. Even going further back than that are mummies that have been preserved and the mummies of Seti 1 and Tutankhamum have been found and their exact centuries known.

These are not facts. You are just repeating what you were told, because you BELIEVE it. Which of them have you seen or touched before?

logicboy: If there was a professor, he clearly had a brain. It is a fact that humans can not function without a brain. We also know what brains look like with looking at dead bodies. Stop acting foolish

I have never in my life seen a human brain, to be honest, except in drawings. Going by your way of reasoning, I shouldn't believe that humans have brains, should I?.. At least not until I see. And even if I had seen, it wouldn't mean that every single person on the face of the earth had one, would it? I would have to see and touch all of them.

logicboy: The student was not Einstein and the story has been debunked;

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

The people who debunked the story might be wrong. This is not to say that I think it was Einstein, I don't even care... But we cannot be absolutely sure it wasn't Einstein. We weren't there when the story was told or "made up" and we didn't follow Einstein all the days of his life to know for sure that he didn't have that conversation, did we? Once again, you choose to BELIEVE what you have no proof of, just because you were told.

I'm just tryna reason the way you taught me boss...

My! What confusion you live in.

logicboy: There is not one thing that a christian can do that a non-believer can not. If this is not evidence for both the uselessness of God and the irrelevance of christianity, I do not know what is.

There is not one thing that you can do in your family (assuming you're a bona fide son), that, let's say, your brother who has rejected the family cannot do.

True?

If yes, then is that not proof that your father and family are useless?

Just trying to reason like you, LOGIC boy.

logicboy: Because it is clearly foolish.

Foolish to you, not to them and billions of others. You are in no position to decide for us.

logicboy: -Did they not want to have children?

They have many children. I'm one.

logicboy: -Did they not have sex on their wedding night which is traditional to know that she is a virgin with the bleeding?

They never had sex. Not everyone on earth has to practice of your tradition. LOGIC boy should know that.

logicboy: 1)Why dont you reject germ theory or gravity? You are free to play in the gutter or to throw your phone at force to the ground. s it because your pastors and fellow christians have told you not to believe in evolution. Clearly, you dont know what a scientific theory means. It is clearly different from a layman's theory.

2) There are transitional fossils that have been found and are well documented. I dont know where to start with your ignorance. Please, let me redirect you to my thread where I destroyed 3 creationists;

https://www.nairaland.com/922920/destruction-creationists-olaadegbu-brainpulse-bigd4050

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M96bkdohMZE



3) I am not blind or deaf, you are talking nonsense. The epic failure of christianity;


There is not one thing that a christian can do that a non-believer can not. If this is not evidence for both the uselessness of God and the irrelevance of christianity, I do not know what is.

I don't reject the evolution theory, but that doesn't mean I see it as a fact - it is not a fact that humans evolved from fishes. And even if it were, you seem not to be aware that "facts" are not necessarily true. There are so many "scientific facts" that have been later found to be false. I know what a scientific theory is: it is NOT FACT!

Its you who is most ignorant. You have never seen or touched a fossil, have you? So going by you method of testing for evidence, its safe to say you know nothing about them. Unless you are basing your argument on FAITH in what scientists say... Are you?

You still haven't told me how to prove to a blind man that the sky is blue...and to a deaf man that birds sing. Instead you keep replying rubbish. Your epic failure!

logicboy: 1) Everybody has witnessed evolution. The very fact that your wisdom teeth is useless and your jaw is smaller compared to the bones or fossils of men that lived in the early centuries is proof of evolution.

Nobody can prove to me that he/she has witnessed evolution. It is not a fact that my wisdom tooth is useless and my jaw is smaller than those of men that lived in the early centuries. You can't prove that the fossils found (which I doubt you have ever touched) are those of men "that lived in the early centuries."

logicboy: 2) The are scans and Xrays and dead human bodies. We know that the professor has a brain

How do you know the professor has a brain if the story is a lie and you haven't seen, touched or felt his brain? Who x-rayed or scanned the pof's brain?

logicboy: 3) The student was not Einstein. That is a hoax

Who was the student then? If you don't know, then how do you know it wasn't Einstein?.. Even though it doesn't matter...

logicboy: You love to be ignorant dont you?

I DONT MIND being ignorant about things that don't matter... And it doesn't matter if the story is a hoax or not.

"Love?" That's another thing entirely. Be prudent with your words.

logicboy: Ptolomeus is right. Do you really expect a married couple not to have sex? Are you joking?

Ptolomeus wrote clear English

I didn't say what I "expect", I said what actually happened!

They are to different things.

What is it that makes you feel that it is impossible for a married couple to abstain from sex with each other?

Ptolomeus: You're not kidding?
In truth you are speaking seriously?
You are saying that Joseph was gay? or powerless? or that Mary was frigid?
I find that very disrespectful.

"Gay", "powerless", "frigid", "disrespectful"

What dictionary are you using?

What schools did you attend?

logicboy: I agree with you: evolution is ONLY a scientific theory - NOT a fact!


1) You fail to understand what a scientific theory is? Germ theory is why you know that bacteria causes diseases. You believe in the theory of gravity, dont you?

2) A scientifc theory contains facts and laws.

3) There is no debate in evolution. There are transitional fossils that show the stages of evolution. Evn presently, man is evolving as we are losing our wisdom teeth and we are getting bigger .

4) I am not blind. If there is a god , I would be able to percieve him.

That a scientific theory "contains facts and laws" doesn't mean it's a fact. It is not!

Example: It is a fact that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories, however, may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be true, false or in-between. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility.

You're still like a blind man who says, "if the sky were blue, I would perceive it."

He doesn't know what "blue" is, so how can he perceive it?

You don't know 'what' God is, so how can you perceive him (or even know how to)?