₦airaland Forum

Aemmyjah:
There ar3 many organs in the past that science said was 'useless' but that has changed upon study
Fake doctor could not answer my simple questions
The complex human body including the brain is a result of blind chance? Yes or No?

Homo erectus and habilis are not known humans or homo. Will you use a skull to determine the size and activities of a whole organism?
Have you heard of Fossil Ida
Whatever the case, there are still disagreements regarding the homos u mentioned

Fake doctor that knows nothing about science and the human body

1. Which organs were hitherto said to be useless?
2. The brain is an organ that was evolved. Nobody said it came by blind chance. Are you usually this cretarded in life? So if it was complex, then boom, Yahweh exists. Are you also aware the brain has its limitations? From this limitations I can say the creator is a fool(if at all there is)
Did it occur to you that the vagina(where babies come from) is 7cm to the poop hole and thus is messy? Some babies during birth may be covered with feces and thus we use macs to separate them.
Also our evolution from quadripeds to bipeds has led to common diseases like hemorrhoids.
Read up more about the flaws in human beings here
https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-235403/
If this is 'Intelligent Design', then Yahweh is even more cretarded than you
3. H. Erectus etc are our ancestors and gave birth to modern human H. Sapiens. And yes you can determine the features of a human by studying the skull. I know you're a daftie and science is beyond you
4. Yes I know Ida. It's the fossil of a juvenile primate. What about it, dvmmyjah?

Dtruthspeaker:
See fool who cannot even think, speaking!

See as a woman dey give you spanking for debate. And you call yourself a lawyer. Lol 😆

Dtruthspeaker:
Rubbish! Everyone knows you atheists are liars and the most toxic and obnoxious people on earth always creating useless and stupid unending arguments.

. Quora even got you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.quora.com/Why-are-atheists-on-the-Internet-so-toxic&ved=2ahUKEwiOnaP5k7aDAxXBV0EAHV5gCL4QFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0n1dsgV5x3fVg9vThVtahU

Lol. I can equally pull up many posts by atheists stating christians are toxic. Doesn't mean anything.
I'm talking about you. Many people including your fellow christards say you're toxic

Aemmyjah:
The video is just a form of disseminating electronically
It can be explained orally, written or whatever way
😉

So where did the video makers get their knowledge from?

SIRTee15:
How many people wrote about the destruction of the city of Pompeii.
Pompeii was a big city, very wealthy and popular. Then in AD 79 it vanished.
Now tell me what happened to it, how many people at that time wrote about it's destruction.

Destruction of Pompeii from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius is such a common theme in history and arts.
Paintings have been made by contemporary artists, even movies made from it. I remember one of the movies, acted by Kit Harrington(Jon Snow of Game of Thrones). That was where I learned of it first before I started researching about it. Historians and archaeologists have written loads of materials on it but somehow an ignorant fellow in Nigeria named Sirtee15 doesn't know.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/last-hours-pompeii-mount-vesuvius-eruption-timeline/&ved=2ahUKEwiO_83I18iDAxWdWUEAHdiDDGoQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3rIwqYoDQwQWw-tWWwssdp

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Pompeii&ved=2ahUKEwiO_83I18iDAxWdWUEAHdiDDGoQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Ib2J0DnfzCGffGpdqUML1

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-eruption-of-mount-vesuvius-in-79-ad-and-the-destruction-of-pompeii&ved=2ahUKEwiO_83I18iDAxWdWUEAHdiDDGoQFnoECDsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1ZIdd0cuLBGCJU4DEIy2Q9

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum&ved=2ahUKEwiO_83I18iDAxWdWUEAHdiDDGoQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DQ4x30kZ2WJslkPRgmjvt

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79_AD&ved=2ahUKEwiO_83I18iDAxWdWUEAHdiDDGoQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dx0xvvRwPQESaU8sNpMtD


You're just an uneducated and daft brute

SIRTee15:
This guy is funny. He will reject metaphysics and philosophy as a prove of God's existence but wants me to accept his wack opinion on gender population based on 'trust me bro'.
If it's someone that's proven himself here as intelligent we may consider his opinion. But someone who cannot define destiny is forming opinion.
Abeg pack one side and let intelligent people respond.

My bases are from facts. If those facts are beyond you, kindly say so. Which of those facts I listed is a lie? Nice way of dodging facts

SIRTee15:
1. I asked for the name of white men who wrote the bible. That's my question.
I'm not interested in who handed over the bible to us. I'm interested in those who wrote the content of the bible. Were they white men? That's my question.
Samuel ajayi crowther brought the bible to the shores of Yorubaland. The English were formerly pagan b4 someone also forced the bible down their throat.

2. Bishops from Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Carthage were present.
Now tell me the name of the western bishops who were present. FYI only 6 bishops from Western churches were present in the council of nicea ouf of 381 in attendance.
Constantine isn't a bishop, he wasnt involved in the establishment of doctrine of nicea. He's irrelevant to topic of discussion

3. I know comprehension is a big issue for u so I will be gentle with u as with a kindergarten.
I said show me any blond hair and blue eye character in the bible, just one. Show me a white character written about in the bible.
The point is there is no single white man in the bible. None. Instead we have known black characters written about in the bible.
Another example is queen of sheba from Ethiopia. There are more if u want.

Finally, u wrote bible claimed Yahweh, jesus and angles had flowing hair. Show me the passage that described them as having flowing hair.
because the book of ezekiel described the angels and definitely not with flowing hair.

I am sick and tired of explaining the Holy Babble to Christians. Its as if they don't even read the damn book.
1. Ajayi Crowther ONLY translated the babble from English to Yoruba. He didn't bring the babble to yorubaland. There were literate people already reading the English and so he translated for the core yoruba who can't understand English. The white man has already brought christianity then
2. Do u know the names of the Egyptian, Carthage priests? Why ask me the English folks names? Constantine chaired the meetings.He is the most important person there. All the decisions were made by him, and he's a Caucasian. Your point is irrelevant.
3. Here are verses where people with long hair are described in the Bible.

Revelation 1:14
Verse Concepts
His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire

1 Chronicles 19:5
Then certain men went and gave David word of what had been done to them. And he sent out with the purpose of meeting them; for the men were greatly shamed. And the king said, Keep where you are at Jericho till your hair is long again, and then come back

2 Kings 9:30
As soon as Jehu arrived at Jezreel, Jezebel adorned her eyes, arranged her hair, and peered out a window


1 Kings 20:32
So they put on some sackcloth, tied their hair back with ropes, and approached the king of Israel. "Your servant Ben-hadad says this," they said. "Please let me live." "Is he still alive?" Ahab asked. "He's my brother


1 Kings 20:31
"Look, now," his advisors suggested, "we've heard that the Israeli kings are merciful. So let's clothe ourselves with sackcloth, tie our hair back with ropes, and go out to the king of Israel. Maybe he'll spare your life


2 Samuel 14:26
And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year's end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king's weight

2 Samuel 10:5
When David had news of it, he sent men out with the purpose of meeting them on their way, for the men were greatly shamed: and the king said, Go to Jericho till your hair is long again, and then come back


1 Samuel 16:12
So he sent and made him come in. Now he had red hair and beautiful eyes and pleasing looks. And the Lord said, Come, put the oil on him, for this is he.

Judges 16:19
So she enticed him to fall asleep on her lap, called for a man to shave off his seven locks of hair from his head, and so began to humiliate him. Then his strength abandoned him


Judges 16:14
So Delilah took the seven locks on his head and wove them into the loom while he slept. She fastened his hair with a peg and then told him, "The Philistines are attacking you, Samson!" But he woke up from his nap and pulled the pin from the loom and the weaving

Judges 16:13
Then Delilah said to Samson, “Up to now you have deceived me and told me lies; tell me how you may be bound.” And he said to her, “If you weave the seven locks of my hair with the web [and fasten it with a pin, then I will become weak and be like any other man


Judges 5:2
"When hair grows long in Israel, when the people give themselves willingly, bless the LORD


Numbers 6:5
All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no rasor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow

Numbers 5:18
After the priest has the woman stand before the Lord, he is to let down her hair and place in her hands the grain offering for remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. The priest is to hold the bitter water that brings a curse

Leviticus 21:10
“The priest who is highest among his brothers, who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and has been ordained to wear the garments, must not dishevel his hair or tear his garments


Genesis 25:25
The first one came out red-looking, covered with hair like a fur coat, and they named him Esau


Leviticus 10:6
Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not let your hair hang loose and do not tear your garments, or else you will die, and the Lord will become angry with the whole community. However, your brothers, the whole house of Israel, may mourn over that tragedy when the Lord sent the fire

Aemmyjah:
Evolution gave us sense of good and evil shey

Answer my question

If your child wants to find a purpose as a serial killer or terrorist. It is ok shey?

Your philosophy has left you with unreliable guidance
Keep wailing

You're just too stvpid or to ignorant to have a convo? Did anyone say evolution is related to morals?

Aemmyjah:
What does the Bible really say?

Psalms 104:5
5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

Psalms 93:1
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure

Psalms 75:3
3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Isaiah 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Isaiah 11:12
12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth

1 Chronicles 16:30
30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved




Please show me where it said the earth is spherical or geoid in these verses?
What its saying is that the Earth has foundations

Aemmyjah:
I laugh at you
All those who say earth is flat are Christians you say? 😂
Your delusion is mighty
The bible itself already described the shape of the earth about 3000 years ago

If the Pope authorize that gay marriages be blessed whereas the Bible says something different or opposite. Does that discredit the Bible?

You mention something about people finding their own purpose
Yet we sometimes condemn or criticise others
If your child wants to find a purpose living as a serial killer or a terrorist... It seems that will make you happy right?

The bible explicitly say the Earth is flat.
How can we find purpose?

Aemmyjah:
You're just negatively sentimental
If you see a house with broken windows and pipes. It shows the house was never built by someone shey?

You're quoting from hearsays
I quoted what Wallace himself said
Should I quote what Wallace wrote to Darwin and Darwin's reply? 😂

The catholic church was wrong
Bible says earth is spherical


You clearly need to educate yourself on spontaneous generation and abiogenesis... You don't even know basic sciences. Both are obsolete. Both are the same... Life cannot emerge from non-life, keep wallowing in ignorance


It's your type of intelligence that can believe that there was a nuclear explosion and Tokyo developed from it either instantaneously or spontaneously... If not, how can the earth and other planets and life emerge from a big bang (cosmic explosion)... You're highly delusional

Evolutionists says that mutation is also responsible for life... How? Mutation is far harmful than beneficial. How can it create something good... Poor critical thinker

DummyJah, you should return your cert (if indeed youre a biologist)
1. Please state the convo between Darwin and Wallace
2. The Catholic notion that the Earth was flat was gotten from the Babble. I have dropped the verses for you but you choose to believe differently. I hope u know it was the Catholic Church that gave rise to JW, so you're part of the error
3. Big Bang Theory was proposed by a priest. A Christian like you. And it does not imply that it gave rise to the universe. Please understand it.
4. No scientist said mutation gave birth to life. Mutation is a type of evolution whereby an organism changes itself to adapt and overcome challenges. And no scientists said evolution gave rise to life, dvmmy

Aemmyjah:
I'm not a retard
You are the retard for accepting what defies proven fact and logic


If abiogenesis is obsolete
Now, did life arose from inorganic matter?
Yes or No? Explain

For the fvckedly umpteenth time, we said we don't know the origin of man.
Actually, your Holy Babble stated that man was made from inorganic material. You gobbled it up without question and now you're here questioning abiogenesis, evolution etc
Really, you're cretarded beyond doubt

Aemmyjah:
Tag me where I said one's purpose is gotten by reading the Bible

Oh, really? Please how does one determine his or her 'purpose'?

Aemmyjah:
Abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact. Yes or No?

Why should a concept or an hypothesis be used to teach something as fact? 🤷‍♂️

Abiogenesis is a theory formerly taught in schools. There are many theories formerly taught and then chucked away after they have been found wanting. There was a time atoms were thought to be the smallest particles. Its why science always rediscovers itself. Nothing is written in stone. Every law, theory, fact is constantly perused to check if its true.
The opposite is religion which believes in dogma. What is accepted 500 years ago must be the same in 2024

Thorrn:
Pray tell, how could Wallace have possibly "fault(ed)" evolution when he was literally a pioneer of the theory, alongside Charles Darwin? Christ, you really are thicker than 2 short planks.



So apparently Wallace believed in spiritualism IE the existence of a spiritual realm beyond the physical world. Okay, good. Although I think it's funny how you're trying to use Wallace's personal ideologies to support your spurious claim to a higher creator deity. Three things here,

1, you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by hinging the validity of your claims on a passing remark made by Wallace. Why exactly should I care that Wallace believed in a higher mind? I could easily cite a number of even more credible scientists who confidently dismiss any notions of a supreme metaphysical being, and use their ideologies to justify my argument. You have no point here.

2, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

3, and this is the important bit: Wallace may have been a spiritualist, but he didn't believe in the Christian God and even rejected Christianity as a religion. He also rejected intelligent design. A seasoned scholar on the subject, Charles Smith, addressed this misconception of Wallace HERE. When asked if Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, he said, "No, no, and no--assuming that i.d. leans on the operation of first causes as Creationism does, that is. Don't fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that "higher intelligences" were influencing events here on earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention."

So basically, you're just running a fool's errand with this nonsensical argument.



I don't think you're lying here actually. I think you're just too stupid to understand how nuanced Wallace's perspectives towards reality were.



LMFAO @ "subtle mother of macroevolution" . Newsflash, dumbo: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It's a separate topic within biology and biochemistry. Secondly, and strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck experiment, not abiogenesis. You clearly don't know the difference. Finally, spontaneous generation is literally how things were created in the Bible if you read your precious book of Genesis very closely. Your imaginary sky daddy was just popping out random complex subjects, both living and non-living, out of thin air. Lol .



More bitter rants and tears from Dundeejah .



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Why is the human eye vulnerable to dust and impact from very strong light? Why is our eyesight so terrible compared to bats? Why are bacteria and viruses more powerful than the human species given that certain ailments like cancer and HIV are totally incurable, or that COVID-19 almost threatened to wipe out the entire human race? How come only 20% of the Earth is inhabitable for human beings, and within the little are that is habitable, we constantly suffer tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes, floods, droughts, global warming and tornadoes?

Oh I know the answer! It's InTeLLiGent dESigN!!!



You don't think. You can't think. You only regurgitate bullshit you don't even understand. Pathetic dullard.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Gof? Who's Gof?





Of course you'd make this spurious argument because you cannot decipher the difference between religion (unquestioned dogma) and science. Criticisms of scientific theories are commonplace within the scientific community. That's how science works, dumbo. Scientists collect data for research, carry out experiments and report their findings. These data are readily accessible to other scientists who can carry out the same experiments and attempt to falsify them. And that's where the strength of science lies: it subjects supposed facts to intense scrutiny to establish their veracity. Scientific knowledge is cumulative. It evolves through the process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the previous works of scientists.

Religion on the other hand, makes allusions to absolute "truths" and are not open to change or growth. In fact, religion explicitly discourages anyone from honestly and objectively challenging the inherent beliefs that are considered sacred to said religion. For example, the case of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church for his conception of a heliocentric solar system which directly contradicted the Church's belief in a flat Earth.

So long story short, Science establishes truth via thorough experiments, criticisms and continuous revision of theories. Whereas, religion establishes truth via indoctrination, blackmail and threats.



Bro, it took you 40 pages to finally realize I'm a girl after calling me a guy all along.

We don't think you're stupid.

We KNOW you're stupid.

Now that you've unwittingly gotten your dumb ass banned, I hope you spend the next 24 hours of your sorry life reflecting on your relentless stupidity, and come back a better man. In the meantime, I'll have to clean up this place. The stench of your illiteracy continues to linger on the thread, like a curry fart in an elevator .

To think a biologist doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is mind-boggling. Crazy

Dtruthspeaker:
As long as you have just admitted that your point on videos and photos is dead then your other points don't exist.

Wtf?
What points did I make?

Aemmyjah:
What has reading and writing got to do with ones purpose?

You said one's purpose is gotten by reading the Babble. If someone is illiterate how is s/he gonna read it? What about deafs and blinds?

kkins25:
Let there be Monkeys... Kabooom! And there was Monkeys. Let there be Ants..... Kaboomm...

and the lord God saw that it was good. He got tired of naming them though. So he instructed Adam to name the rest...hahaha.

Aesop's Fables make better fiction than that

Thorrn:
Stop the cap .

Aemmyjah..., sorry. Dundeejah is a biologist??!

D D

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8g64kY45X1qihztbo1_400.gif

My dear, the dvnce said he's a biologist. Environmental biologist. He hasn't said a word either on this thread or anywhere on Nairaland that shows he's one. Either he's a regular fraud or the poor educational system in the country has another victim

SIRTee15:
The scientific evidence placed the earthquake at 31 +/- 5 AD.
You asking if the earthquake was b4 or after cruxifixion just expose your ignorance of archeological dating.
The magnitude and the after effect of the
earthquake is a matter subjective opinion. They
were not there to determine the damage of the
local earthquake.
But what we know is there was definitely an earthquake around the period of Christ cruxifixion.
Your highlighted only suggested the local earthquake wasn't serious enough to leave extant evidence or extra biblical record. Then they concluded Mathew inserted the story into the gospel.
However, Thallus who lived in the 30s AD and witnessed the event confirmed the earthquake happened on the eve of the Passover.

I already gave plausible explanation to the 3rd
event of that night - resurrection of saints.

You blindly ignored the part your article stated it was 31 ad or bc. Keep lying to yourself.
You also ignored my other posts including the facts that the earthquake was recorded BY ONLY MATTHEW and not other disciples.
None of the writers of the Bible were eye witness accounts. And Thallus definitely isn't an eye witness.
AND YOU IGNORE THE FACT THIS DISCOURSE IS ABOUT THE MASS RESURRECTION THAT PURPORTEDLY HAPPENED. NOT ABOUT THE EARTHQUAKE
Your efforts at distraction is noted

Dtruthspeaker:
No 1
Quora
https://www.quora.com ›
What are the basic rules of an 'argument'?
26 Jan 2019 — What are the basic rules of an 'argument'?
Top answer · 4 votes
The first basic rule is: Fight fair! No low blows, no insults or ad hominems. No fallacious

And see how atheist low blowed/ad hominemed me
"Dtruthspeaker chooses to make up HIS own rules of debate which veers off track from conventional logic. [b]He has proven countlessly over the years that he is severely incompetent on the subject of known logical fallacies because not only does he fail to identify them when he uses one, but he also misapplies them when he attempts to call other people out. His approach towards Christian apologetics is often so haphazard and sloppy that any seasoned Christian debater who watches him in action will be wishing he shuts up to save their position from further regression and embarrassmen[/b]t 😂.

Typical atheists argument.

Which happens to be the truth

Botragelad:
Do you need a debate, without deviating. A fair one?

A debate with Dlieapeaker? Well, don't say you weren't warned. Dude is so daft. He doesn't understand logic and would eventually frustrate you

Maynman:
Before Christianity was created, there was Christmas.

In the Julian Calendar used by the Roman Empire, the winter solstice occurred around December 25.

To remain a christian, one has to be excessively ignorant.

OLAADEGBU:
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheists-christmas-why-celebrate-holiday/

As usual, a potpourri of beautiful bullshit.
Christians have 2 major holidays, right? Do you know their histories? If you do, y'all wont celebrate them. Easter and Christmas are pagan celebrations and their origins started with sacrifices to their gods. The Romans came in and converted them to Christian holidays after Christianity became their state religion. Some Christian denominations even know this and refuse to celebrate them. Like JW etc. Do your research yourself. I don't want to post links cos I know you won't read them.
The OP said sciences and history are consistent with the Babble. How? Most babble events aren't captured in history, from Egyptian enslavement of Israel to mass resurrection during Jesus death. Also science refutes Creationism
Hogwash!

SIRTee15:
Read this article. It highlight scientific evidence of the earthquake described by Mathew on the night Jesus was crucified.


A geological study based on sediments near the Dead Sea indicate that an earthquake occurred around 31 AD ± 5 years, which plausibly coincides with the earthquake reported by Matthew 27 near the time of the crucifixion of Christ

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-early-first-century-earthquake-in-the-Dead-Sea-Williams-Schwab/037fc20bee7296e7722f1037f2d2e738aab456c0

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00206814.2011.639996

Thallus on the other hand described both the darkness at 3pm and also the earthquake.

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover;
cited by sextus Julius africanus

1. Obviously you didn't read any of those trash 'evidence' you posted. If you did you would have seen this…

This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. We have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory
A. The excerpt said it happened in 31 AD and also 31BC. So which one we go take? Different dates depict confusion and uncertainty.
B. Only Matthew reported an earthquake. Mark, Luke and John didn't. So an earthquake that big was ignored by 3 people and reported by one? Dey play! Lol 😆
C. Your 'evidence' wasn't sure if the earthquake happened before or after the crucifixion. Lol 😆
D. Finally the bolded part shows your 'evidence' is just bullshit. Its suggesting the earthquake was an allegory(much like what many modern day christians attribute the Bible)
2. In your usual dishonest way, you ignored the the main topic of discussion. We were discussing the 'mass resurrection' that happened on the death of Jesus and not any earthquake
Nice try

Aemmyjah:
Oga
Abi madam
You are just fooling around
You are living in delusion
Let us agree on something first
Whether you describe as Allah, Amadioha, Buddha... Is that an evidence that the was no creator?

Has the theory of Evolution regarding the origin of life and complexity been tested with scientific approach

Proved science tells us that nin life cannot produce life and parents only produce like offsprings tho variation occurs but nothing entirely different is produced... Mating two different kind of organisms won't produce viable offsprings cos the gametes are incompatible... Jaephoenix the fake doctor should atleast know this but both of you lie to yourself just like a transgender person will use science to say that not only women can get pregnant


Keep fooling around

Thorrn , shebi I tell you bro won't touch those links. These arguments, both the logical and scientific aspects, are way over his boundaries. For all we know, Aemmyjah could be a rustic countryside dude with basic primary education and access to internet. How tf do you want him to process all these data?
Now the Dundeejah is wailing that similar organisms dont produce different organisms. Please Dundee, do you know what H. Erectus, H. Habilis are?
Do you know how how we humans got an appendix which is a useless organ, or the tail bone?
I dont expect him to answer. He'll still repeat those his wailings like a broken radio

Thorrn:
Yes. Scientific fact.



...coming from somebody with obvious cognitive limitations -- as has been demonstrated countlessly on this thread, I won't register this remark as anything more than an emotional outburst. Be careful so you don't pop a vein out of frustration .



Testing it for myself will not change the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the theory of evolution is correct (An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists' Views). That link shows that 98% of all scientists accept evolution and the number rises to 99% when we look at scientists in relevant (biological) fields. There have been several experiments that tested various aspects of evolution. At this point it has been observed repeatedly in the wild and in laboratory conditions.

The real question here is if you can disprove or falsify evolution. And if you want to achieve that, you'll need to do a lot more than just sitting on your ass at home, spouting nonsense from your self-contained apartment. I have no dog in this fight because evolution being true or not does not affect my atheism. Plus, after you're done falsifying evolution and submitting your findings for peer review, you'll still need to go ahead and tender empirical evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, because evolution being false doesn't automatically make creationism true.

I've hyperlinked the relevant sources for anyone who is interested. I already know you won't read it because not only are you too stupid and thick to understand the methodologies involved, but because you are a coward who keeps running from facts that challenge your infantile beliefs. I'm still indulging you for the sake of viewers who are interested in seeking out the truth. Other than that, I'm already starting to feel like a bully



...and yet you believe in an imaginary being that you have never seen or heard. It has never spoken to you and you don't know what it looks like. You put blind trust in an ancient text riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, and fellow human beings who do not know any better. Remove the log of Iroko in your eye my dear.



Who says all atheists are meant to think the same way or share the same ideologies? The only thing we have in common is lack of belief in gods. Atheists are far more dynamic in their views and philosophies. We're not zombies like the Christians. Lol.



It's brain, not head, if we want to be technical.

And at least my brain feeds me something. Your brain is still on sabbatical .

Please nah. Stop bullying Aemmyjah. These mental contortions are making those cogs in his brain too hot.
You wanna bet? He aint touching those links

Thorrn:
Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

This is Aemmyjah, candidate for the dumbest theist alive. These questions aren't for him. He'll literally have a mental breakdown thinking about them, never mind answering them

Thorrn:
I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is. I already know what it is, thank you very much. Furthermore, in view of the watery responses you've been giving thus far, I'm inclined to assume that you may have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "proof" of a claim. You cannot present a vague sentence and pretend that it will suffice as proof of your God. You have to properly demonstrate the connection if you really want to convince me that you're not just making things up.




A variant of this idea has been pointed out to you already, but I'm going to say it again, in case you missed it or still don't understand. Read this very slowly: in any philosophical discussion, a claim can either be explicit or implicit in nature. You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument. For example, let's say we worked in the same office and you asked me if I had eaten that morning before coming to work. Then I simply just reply saying, "I eat every morning before coming to work". The likely inference you'd make from my response is that I had eaten that morning before coming to work. So far, I can't decipher anything new or original about your argument. Top tier atheist debaters don't even rate the argument these days and can rebut it without having to expend much brain juice.

It's funny though that you keep insisting this is not your argument. What this leads me to conclude is that (a) you have a very shoddy understanding of the depth of the argument you're trying to push forward here, in which case I would suggest you go back and properly study the cosmological arguments for God's existence to see how they mirror the argument you think you're trying to make. However, I'm also tempted to think towards option (b) though, which says you're a dishonest troll that rejects any important critiques of his claims because he doesn't want to cede any ground and admit that his knowledge or understanding of the subject is shaky. As far as I can tell, you are currently presenting the cosmological argument (first cause), and until you can provide further clarifications for the statement "nothing [in this world] created itself", I will continue to treat it as such.



Lacking any specific context, your answer is technically is a non-sequitur to my question -- which literally means that you didn't actually answer it. So maybe explain your "answer" properly, and then we'll understand how it makes any sense as a response to the question of proving God's existence. As it stands, your "answer" (if it can be called that) reads more like a nonsensical string of words that have nothing to do with the actual subject of discourse.



Who is the "we" in this blathering rejoinder? You and your braindead cheerleader, Aemmyjah? Personally, I would be more skeptical towards the credibility of my own argument if the only person who could validate it was someone with a sleeping brain .



This paragraph is just another demonstration of your tendency for wilful avoidance of flaws in your arguments by playing semantics. I have noticed that it seems to be your preferred forum style -- to slither and dodge pertinent questions using irrational sophistry and frivolous appeals to semantics. But that's besides the point. What I find even more hilarious here is the fact that your pathetic attempt to redefine "certain deities" into "all deities" is an exercise in pointlessness since it accomplishes absolutely nothing. The question still remains. If you cannot know every deity that exists out there in the world, on what basis can you dismiss their existence, or their involvement in the creation of the world?



Pffft. The only person departing from the topic is the one who's running scared of answering straightforward questions based of the implications of his argument. You really didn't think this through, did you ?



1) No such fallacy exists. You literally just made that up.

2) Its funny you think that I'm "demanding the impossible", and it says a lot about the indefensible position you have assumed in this thread. You know deep down that your Jewish deity has no distinct evidence that sets him apart from every other deity in recorded history and that is why you think my simple request is "demanding the impossible".



If you really think there's nothing vague about predicting an unstable economy or about predicting marriage and/or divorce rates, then it's either you haven't got a single clue or you're just lying to yourself.

Here let me show you. I, Thorrn, am predicting now that rain will fall more than 3 times in the year 2048. If you're still alive by then and this prophecy comes to pass, you'll send me your address for me to come over and then you'll lie down flat on your face and suck on my toes as your lord and commander. You'll also wire any sum of cash I need to my account .

If you refuse to acknowledge this bet, then please tell me the difference between my prediction and that of one illiterate goat herder from ages ago.

Can you see the problem yet?



This "prophecy" in particular will derail this thread if I choose to unpack it in its entirety. Long story short, it lacks any merit because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy IE it required the conscious or deliberate awareness and action of the people concerned to bring it to fruition. For example, if I prophesy that I will buy a car before 2026 and I do, am I therefore a divine entity? etc.

Anyways, if you wish to proceed further with this Israel prophecy debate, I would suggest we open another thread for it and I will talk more on the Israel prophecy. For this thread, I'm more interested in your claim that nothing in this world created itself is proof of God's existence.



This assessment is ridiculously naive. Clearly you have never studied the claims of other religions for you to arrive at this preposterous conclusion. There are many prophecies made in Quran and Hadith by Muhammad that muslims claim to becoming true. For instance, Surah Rome, line 2-4, where Allah pronounces that Romans were defeated but soon within 3-9 years Romans will rise and defeat the Persians. And it did happen. The Romans defeated the Persians. Also there's a hadith where Muhammad said that the arab land will return to being green again, and apparently there are videos circulating the internet, showing that after heavy rain the arab land is slowly becoming green.

Buddhism also has its own fair share of "accurate" prophecies, according to your standard. You should check out the Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol where lots of interesting prophecies were made about the state of our present society including increase in sexual perversion, youths being more disrespectful towards their elders, cheating and nepotism, and even the rise of the feminist movement and men gradually becoming "simps". These prophecies seem almost even more impressive than the ones you profess. To this end, I wonder on what basis you can choose to dismiss Buddhism as lesser or inferior to Christianity.

Then there's the great prophet Nostradamus who predicted the Great Fire of London, the French Revolution as well as the rise and fall of both Hitler and Napoleon. He made all these prophecies as far back as the 16th Century.

I'm curious to know your response to these prophecies. According to your shoddy standards for validating the truth of a prophecy, all of the aforementioned examples (which are just a tiny few among many) should suffice as proof for their credibility. However I'm willing to wager that you can't attack these prophecies without committing the fallacy of special pleading. But go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.



Of course, because you're yet to present anything worthwhile for me to "have".



Oh yeah? Let's examine these allegations.



FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: ...occurs when the premise that the parts of a whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to infer that the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good story)

I already had my suspicions, but it appears that you have indeed spuriously misapplied the fallacy of composition here. Let's backtrack and follow the logic of our conversation.

(1) You claimed that nothing [in this world] created itself.

(2) I noted that you qualified your claim with the adjectival phrase "...in this world", and so I demanded you to define what you meant by the "world" in your claim IE what it consists of.

(3) Your response to my demand above was the following, and I quote you verbatim: this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. So clearly, you were talking of the physical earth which houses all the known living organisms in the universe.

...which brings us back to where we are presently. Assuming the earth is a subset of the solar system which exists in our known universe, my premise here, in light of your definition, would be that God created the earth. You have not provided any explanation as to the source of other objects that exist in the solar system? Where did the Moon come from? What of the other planets? In fact let's take it all the way to our entire galaxy sef. Who created the Milky Way? Who created the Black Hole? These questions are totally justified because YOU yourself have limited the scope of your God's involvement in creation to the earth alone. So accusing me of committing a fallacy of composition is terribly nonsensical because I did not make any positive inference or extrapolation in this subject. It might have been a fallacy of composition if I had said,

(1) God created the earth.

(2) So therefore, God created the universe.

If you know anything at all about the principles of logic, you'd know that the syllogism above isn't just a fallacy of composition, but is also a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the example you attempt to use as an illustration of your point is completely unintelligible, I can't even make any sense from it. What was the ship defined to mean in this farcical analogy of yours? I think I get the idea behind the analogy but your wording if it is just so laughable.

You also mentioned "begging the question". I don't see how your analogy illustrates that fallacy at all. Maybe you can explain this allegation better for me to make more sense of it? So far I haven't made any positive claims. The burden of proof is on you here and your knees seem to buckling under the pressure. Lol.



Look, I can literally make sense out of every single nonsense in this world if I'm determined to give that thing some sort of meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm correct or that the facts of reality agree with me. The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. You should go read up on Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance. You are completely entrenched in the notion that your belief is flawless so your brain will never accept the fact that there is a possibility that you're wrong. I repeat, the Bible is a steaming pile of bullshit contradictions, confabulations and outright lies. Any objective reader who reads books to arrive at truth and important facts that are independent of subjective beliefs or desires can testify to this. And I don't care if the Bible has one or two valuable nuggets for good and righteous living because countless other religious tomes espouse the exact same virtues, yet I don't see you subscribing to Buddhism or converting to Islam, or worshipping Vishnu because of that.

The Bible is a vague text that any idiot can pick up and find something that caters to his own personal and selfish idiosyncrasies. That is why you have different doctrines even within Christianity. Or did you forget that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc. worship the same God. You people quarrel among yourselves over tithes, the Trinity, divorce, abortion and homosexual relationships with each side using the Bible to justify his/her points. You people can't ever seem to get your stories straight when it comes to Biblical teachings and facts -- like armed robbers giving different alibis after they've been caught and exposed .

I think it's amusing the way you try to presume my reasons for not accepting your childish beliefs. Atheists seem to unnerve you, make you jittery, isn't it? You can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not encumbered with your religious trifle, so it's easier for you to believe that I just hate God and the Bible, instead of accepting that I genuinely don't see any tangible reason to believe that God exists. If it helps you sleep at night, sure. Keep believing in unfounded fantasies because you're too scared to face the facts of life.



My dear, it's looking more likely that you never had a point in the first place.

Stop it! You're making DTruthSpeaker to think and its making him dizzy

[quote author=Aemmyjah post=127609788]Watch the video
Is that process a result of mindless chance or intelligent design
Let us know if you are an original doctor or fake?
Another atheist without good sense called snowflakes- a wonder of blind chance

How breastfeeding works
Credit: design_cells pic.twitter.com/HQIUy9YpOX

— Aether (@aether_coin) December 24, 2023

I have answered this question before. Not doing it again

kkins25:
So, what is your scientific approach for debunking the scientific theory of Evolutio?

Discussing science with Aemmyjah, DTruthSpeaker? Whoa! You must have the patience of 10 men

Aemmyjah:
In a book ke?
The vegetation exists for a reason
Rains have a purpose
The magnetic shield has a purpose
The moon has a purpose
Soil has a purpose
Will the most intelligent creature on earth not have a purpose? Or just exists by chance having no meaning?

What is the purpose of life?
Watch the video to find the answer

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-ebtv_9_VIDEO

Lol. Stick your video in your ass. So I have to watch a video to know my 'purpose'? What if I'm illiterate and have no access to Internet?