₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
But KAG,


It has been shown over and over by historians and archeologists that the claims made in the book can not be substantiated in any way. So Are you saying he wrote a good book of fiction or are you trying to say his book make sense based on history? I don't get it ,


Kobojunkie

A good work of fiction that plays on the many parts of Jesus' life and the history of Christianity that are sufficiently vague, shrouded in secrecy, or unable to be completly and conclusively refuted. Also, to bring in another point, Dan Brown clearly knows a good deal about Christianity and some of its history.

cgift:
You will b shocked that Zeuxs himself will bown down and be humbled in judgement when the Son of Man (Jesus) sits on the throne.

You blasphemer! It's Zeus, not "Zeuxs". And just so you know the sonof man (Jesus) already bowed to Zeus's awesomeness. Repent.

davidylan:
You still havent answered the question, how did the egg-laying dinosaurs appear? How did they evolve and from what?

I didn't know there was a question I missed. I suppose, I expected it to have been covered by the basic premise of evolution. In any case, egg laying dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. They evolved from them most likely through mutations and selection.

If they evolved from unicellular organisms as they always lie to us in biology, how did those organisms get there and what gave them life?

Lie to you in biology? How quaint. In any case, I guess your question - with all the tassels and sequins removed - boils down to how life may have started. In a sense, it's inconclusive at the moment; however, competing theories in abiogenesis are showing that life could have arisen naturally. At the moment, it's understandably difficult to state which path the origins of life took.

Purist:
Do you, in the first place, expect a holy war to be declared by Christians? I fail to see the essence of the comparism between Islam and Christianity here.

Pray tell, would you risk your precious life just to prove that you're not a coward, even when nobody really cares; or even when your "bravery" doesn't affect anybody positively?

I agree. What many people fail to appreciate is the fact that writing books are long, sometimes boring (make that often boring), time and social life consuming enterprises. It makes little sense to write a book that you can't justify to yourself. If your book or prospective book/project doesn't convince you the writer on some level, then chances are it won't convince publishers.

davidylan:
I'm guessing you were there when sperm or predecessors of chickens suddenly evolved naturally, yes?
That, or could your provide some tangible evidence, please?

No, I wasn't there; however, the fossil record and the processes of evolution point to a certain conclusion.

Two googlelized examples of egg laying dinosaurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4446769.stm
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/eggstudy.html

Surely since u are so sure that God did not create them you must be able to also evolve a chicken too, no?

Nope, but then again, reproducing what took nature several billion years to accomplish has never been requisite for science or the evidence it presents.

davidylan:
and you know this how? Did you see these eggs? Do you have fossils of these eggs? Can we test the veracity of your claim in the lab?

There are fossils of different types of eggs; in particular, dinosaur eggs. Their veracity has already been tested in labs.

Who put these eggs there in the first place? The big bang?

If I had to guess, I'd say the animal laying - or preparing to lay, as the case may be - the eggs probably put them there. Just a guess. The Big Bang on the otherhand is a cosmological model of the Universe and has no business laying eggs.

Atheists are deluded.

Well, just as long as we aren't forcibly denuded, it's all good.

Seun:
The chicken came first. But it decided to lay it's eggs instead of keeping them inside till maturity.

By the way: who created God? Afterall nothing can exist without a cause. So who created God?

Neither of those are right. Animals were already laying eggs before chickens. Also, some things can exist without causes - they just tend to be counter-intuitive. One example is virtual particles.

debosky:
nothing can exist without a cause because the Creator - God made it so, the Creator was not created, he has always been and will always be.

I like how your post was devoid of anything resembling a coherent argument.

davidylan:
You cannot "create" a CREATOR.

Sure you can. Even by your belief attests to that: The Christian Creationist believes humans were created by YHVH; Humans create. By the way, humans have created creators too.

how did the chicken get there? Do you have fossils of the world's first chicken?

No. Do you?

cgift:
This is all trash. Listen: God creatd chicken to lay eggs. So the chicken came first. You guys should not disturb yourselves.

I don't think it's much of a disturbance - at least not on my end. I'm guessing you were there when your God created chickens ex nihilo to lay eggs, yes? That, or could you provide some tangible evidence, please?

mrpataki:
What a dumb question indeed.

Try answer this:

Which came first, Man or Sperm?

Sperm.

Purist:
No, I do think this is a pertinent question, and is actually good for enquiring minds in their quest for knowledge.

I agree.

@ KAG

What/Who created the predecessors of chickens?

Created? No one. They evolved naturally.

stingersmi:
Funny though, If the egg comes ist, then what laid the egg?
If its the chicken, then how does it come about, cause there can be egg without chicken and chicken without egg.

So i put back the question to KAG to prove that logicaly that the egg came first!

The predecessors of chickens laid eggs. Basically, prior to the existence of chickens there were eggs - amniotic eggs; ergo, eggs came before chickens.

davidylan:
Yep Rushdie may be "swimming in millions" but unlike Dan Brown he is not free to move around his adopted country. Might have something to do with the fact that the government of Iran has a bounty on his head eh.

Technically, the government of Iran doesn't have a bounty on Rushdie's head and for all intents and purposes the fatwa isn't in action (although it can't be lifted because the issuer is dead). That is not to say that Rushdie wasn't wanted dead by the Ayatollah. Just stating the facts. In any case, at this moment Rushdie can move around Britain in about the same capacity as Brown can in America.

Hirsi Ali has had to live in hiding since 2004 while Dan Brown roams free.

Oh, I thought you said exile. In any case, she roams just as free as Dan Brown does.

Because you refuse to see.

Or there's nothing to be seen apart from the fact there are people who write about/against Christian themes and there others who do the same against Islam. Several who write against Islam have been threatened with death, others haven't. The same goes for a few who have written against Christianity.

Is that your example of Dan Brown's threats?

It's the most famous because of its source, it wasn't the only [alleged] one.

If that was the type Ali, Rushdie and others were subjected to we wont be talking here now. That link is so ridiculous.

Actually, apart from Rushdie (who had the bounty for his death threat endorsed by a muslim head), it's remarkably similar to that the others have received. All it would take is one nut who thinks his God's law trumps that of the country.


Anyhoo, back to my original point: People find inspiration in different places and authors tend to write books on subjects they understand and to which they can do justice. It has less to do with hypocrisy and cowardice and more to do with the nature of writing books and art of creativity.

davidylan:
Maybe you chose to gloss over the most critical denominator for all those mentioned. While Dan Brown swims in millions as proceeds from his now famous book, Theo Van Gogh has paid with his life, Salman Rushdie has a fatwah hanging over his head, Ali has had to go into exile and the others are protected by the US.
Shouldnt have been difficult to see that you know. . .

First, Salman Rushdie, though threatened with a fatwa, is swimming in millions too (I know, not your point, but worth mentioning). Ali was already in "exile" (I suspect you mean her assylum in the Netherlands) before she started writing. I've seen to evidence to suggest that the others are anymore protected by the U.S than any other high profile author. I agree Theo Van Gogh was killed by a insane Muslim fanatic.

Basically, it was difficult to see.

P.S. Dan Brown has receieved his share of death threats too - though none endorsed by Christian high leaders, with this being one of the most famous: http://blog.atheology.com/2006/05/23/1000000-rupees-for-dan-browns-head/

davidylan:
that is your own school of thought. I certainly do not think christianity is an act of delusion, perhaps to those of you who are desperate to hang unto just about anything to assuage guilty consciences (even though you deny it).

Of course.

OLAADEGBU:
The atheist test has proved a few facts.

1. That there are no genuine atheists

It didn't do anything of the sort.

2. That there may be a few agnostics

There are many agnostics

3. That the agnostics are either foolish or have ulterior motives for sticking to their guns

Or that Ray Comfort doesn't have a head for logic

4. That the admission of the existence of God will make them accountable for their sins and hence they silence their consciences to the obvious.

I love the hubris in thinking people are atheists just because they are scared of your God or that they only reject the existence of your God.

5. The terror and horror of facing God as the Judge after death.

I'm scared of being eaten last.

I challenge all those who claim to be genuine atheists to answer the above 6 atheist test sincerely and honestly and also the moral test at the end to see whether they can pass them or not.

@KAG, I appreciate the fact that you made an attempt to answer the atheist test even though you seemed to get stuck midway. Try to complete the test without deviating from the point. Thanks.

Actually, I got bored because it's not the first time I've seen the long convoluted Way of the Master illogic.

davidylan:
Have you noticed the common link between the above mentioned and the vast disparity between them and a certain Dan Brown?

They all have works that deal with Islamic themes, while Dan Brown's deals with Christian themes.

davidylan:
i will only take them serious when they do a similar thing with islam. I don't respect the views of cowards and hypocrites.

Its easy to write a book to slander christianity especially when you will get paid well for it, live the rest of your life a celebrity and not have to worry about fatwahs.

Not everyone is Salman Rushdie, Reza Safa, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or indeed Theo Van Gogh. People find inspiration in different places and authors tend to write books on subjects they understand and to which they can do justice.

dearone:
Are humans really spirit?

What do you mean by spirit?

Gogirl:
Don't You Think The Endtime Is At Hand

No, I don't.

Backslider:
The Answer is yes Jesus knew when he will return.

And no he is not a liar.

Biblical reference please. Mark 13: 32 "No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father", says otherwise.

ricadelide:
perhaps i should read about it. the term hardly attracts me though .

You should. Here's a link: http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm

By the way, Glenn Morton is a Christian.

you know you're still an individual.

I know, but I suspect I was no different from the majority that also accept the fact that the findings of geologists are legitimate.

ok, that may suffice. no need to bring up the past in the case in question though; like many humans i'm dynamic.

Fair enough.

Was expecting the question and pardon me i really can't go into an argument about that right now; i have my hands full here and i show up in nairaland in spurts. However i could provide links to some articles i've read. Ok? here's one http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
*edited* here's another [url]http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon[/url]indeed as well.

I can sympathise with that. In any case, here's a link that attempts to correct several of Plaisted's misconceptions and wrong arguments: http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html

I'll also provide what I consider one of the best and easily understandable write-ups on radiometric dating available on the web: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

High probabilities however always remain probabilities. the few occasions to the contrary precludes from making valid genaralizations.
the cup could either be half empty or half full . . . .

In this case, it's almost certain that it isn't that dichotomy: the cup is brimming.

ricadelide:
1. LOL . . . . . call it whatever you like. I would not claim to be without bias on the issue,

"Morton's demon" is more than simply being biased. It's a lot more deeper and subtler than that.

however, neutral people can (and perhaps do) share my reservations if adequately exposed to the process and the data generated.

As someone who was once neutral on the issue, I disagree.

2. Because i don't buy the inconsistencies and underlying assumptions then i've not understood it? what a cheap way to explain skepticsm away.

I didn't say that. My opinion was based on the impression I've gotten from past debates and discussions with you and other Young Earth Creationist - endorsing Hovind helps with the impression. In any case, what are those inconsistencies and unpalatable underlying assumptions and how do they affect radiometric dating, the dates that have been found?

History has repeatedly taught me that popular agreement (even by so-called specialists) does not validate a claim - although it may buy the claim some time. This applies on either side of the debate. The 'little' i've read and the inconsistencies i've heard just about does it for me. Even the most logical mind is reduced to a fool if his proposition is based off of faulty and unjustifiable assumptions.
just my opinion as well.

Indeed, however, history has shown that many times the majority is right if they go to great pains to not only show their work but also attempt to falsify their work. Furthermore, the chances of being wrong are made even less when the majority use different methods to do the measurements and tests.

ricadelide:
Good for you. I have, and it doesn't do for my critical mind - i don't find it easy to swallow the many 'claims'. And please don't say that's cognitive dissonance.

Okay, I wont call it cognitive dissonance, I'll call it "Morton's Demon". In my opinion, I doubt you've studied or taken the time to understand radiometric dating, natural phenomena that can give scientists an inkling of time passed, and why geologists (practically all of them) can make the claims they have. Just my opinion.

Oh dear!

OLAADEGBU:
The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

I hope this doesn't seem rude, but neither you nor Ray Comfort knows anything about the Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution. What is insulting is that neither of you has taken the time to even get vaguely acquianted with the theories you denegrate.

The banana -- the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

https://i9.tinypic.com/6agu3di.gif

While Comfort is right that the banana is the atheist's nightmare (after all, everyone knows that the dreams of all true atheists consists of giant bananas chasing them to chew them), he seems oblivious to the fact that modern bananas are an example of evolution. There's a good reason modern bananas fit the phallic imagery of Comfort's: humans caused them to evolve. Also, no one claims bananas - and indeed other species - happened by accident

TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."




Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."

First, you can only use Coca-Cola cans as an analogy when they start reproducing. Until then, mentioning them is moot.

Second, the evolution of the eye -including that of humans - is not impossible nor is it implausible naturally. Also, here's the full Darwin quote:

[center]To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. [/center]


There was no reason to quotemine Darwin. By the way, Gallup was wrong and Einstein was a pantheist, and neither's quotes matter in a discussion on the evolution of human parts.

TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

___ YES ___ NO

Yes.

B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

No

___ YES ___ NO
If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Some natural structures could loosely be considered buildings.

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.

However, if, somehow, there was a narrow funnel-esque structure on the ground that allows only one orange at a time to pass through it, in time you may have a lot of oranges in a straight line. It won't need any divine intervention.

TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?

___ YES ___ NO

B. Did it happen by accident?

___ YES ___ NO

C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?

___ YES ___ NO

D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________
If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

No, for the first; it may have, for the second; doubtful, for the third; and it depends on the parameters, for the foruth

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Not quite.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

Here is another: there is no intergalatic spaceship equipped with a weapon more deadly than a supernova in China.

TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from my eyes, I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

Look Ray, just stop, okay. Just stop. Your reasoning is flawed. In any case, most atheists will point out that while there's no tangible evidence to show a God exists, that doesn't mean there aren't any Gods; however, the Gods that have been presented so far have been found wanting.

[The rest of that]

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

ricadelide:
Have you, consistent with your mindset, critically examined the dating methods and the underlying assumptions, not to mention the numerous inconsistencies?

Yes.

IDINRETE:
Dear cgift, this link is of Ron Wyatt
have you made any research on him at all before posting this link?

Ron Wyatt's discoveries have been proven to be fraud and false by eminent archeologists and even Christian biblical scholars

you need to reconsider your position on him[Ron Wyatt]

would you care to enlighten us on what happened during the time of biblical Pharaoh?

QFT. The legacy of the "liars for Jesus" still, unfortunately, lives on and people - Christians - still get taken in by blatant frauds. That is not to say, though, that only Christians can be duped or that non-Christians are automatically smarter than Christians.

analyt82:
KAG, The Word means "man", as in EVERYONE. Also as in, WoMAN.

[KAG refuses to succumb to sarcasm] The smilie at the end of my sentence should have made it clear I was kidding. Anyway, thanks.

ricadelide:
Undeniably evident? its easy to make statements that can't be defended.

I don't know it can't be defended, especially if you consider the fact that several fossilised eggs predate chickens by millions of years.

OLAADEGBU:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God". Psalm 14:1

But the wise have lifted up their voices and proclaimed it out loud.

For the atheist to arrive at this conclusion he must be sure 100% of the knowledge and understanding of everything in space, time and matter in this world and in the universe. If you cannot guarantee the perfect knowledge of everything that you see how can you conclude on what you do not see?

Poor argument. By your reckoning, we can't conclude that Santa, the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, Unicorns, and Yog-Sothoth don't exist either. Oh well, all hail Zeus.

This is a testimony of an atheist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/Joel_Galvin_Testimony.asp

This is a testimony of an atheist:

http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2005/01/former-fundamentalist-turned-atheist.php

OLAADEGBU:
To deny the existence of God is as foolish and stupid as to deny the existence of electricity, heat, light, cold and innumerable other things seen and unseen.

Um, no, not really. All the things you mentioned can be tested for and against, their existences or non-existences can also be falsified or will have the potential to be falsified.

Many people today can give testimonies of lifes changed by faith in God, answers to prayer and personal experiences of many types.

And many can testify about prayers that were unanswered, lives affected adversely due to religion, and can present many other anecdotes. What's more interesting, though, is that people from many religions - even religions that are diametrically opposites - can present the same argument you've presented for their own God(s).

While this is so among believers in Christ not one secular humanist, agnostic or atheist can boast of any benefit from his unbelief and if there appears to be any they are set on a slippery slope for the big fall that will come on them suddenly.Psa.73:18,19

Don't be silly: odds are you don't personally know any secular humanists, atheists or agnostics.

drrionelli:
"QFT," KAG?

Sorry. QFT = Quoted for truth.

Bosdem:
To know if human can obey simple instructions

Interesting. Would I be right in assuming that you don't believe the Abrahamic God was omniscient?

MP007:
@ KAG
Near death experience as illustrated briefly by me was not intended to serve as a form of evidence but to serve as "the truth" .The truth in terms of what really hapens during near death experience, There is nothing to prove here, Its real KAG , its real

Except, it's most likely not "true" in the sense that you mean it - that is, the experiences in this instance are no different from the other NDEs, many of which have big differences. Another good one is the fraudulent Nigerian Lazarus that you posted, but hey, don't let me spoil your truth party.

Yes, it's okay.

Purist:
@ topic

This is one relevant question that I once used to ponder on sometimes ago.

I think many of us here are looking at this from an entirely different perspective. If you understand the poster's question very well, you'll notice that he's not actually asking 'why' animals experience birth pains - in respect of the naturalness of the phenomenon; but he's asking 'why' - in respect of what the Bible tells us on the real cause of Birth pains. Allow me to expound on his question:

Since the Bible tells us that Birth Pains is one of the woman's punishments for eating out of the forbidden fruit, then why do animals - who did not eat out of the fruit - also suffer birth pains, if we're to really go by what the Bible tells us?

Of course, I understand perfectly the scientific (logical, actually) explanation given for this, which is the most rational explanation for the cause of birth pains. But this explanation renders the Biblical explanation completely invalid, hence absolutely impertinent, and consequently, making the Holy Book seem unreliable.

So, anyone to elucidate this?

Maybe the Adam and Even narrative wasn't intended as a literal, historical account?

mellow:
Sorry to ask but who did the Animals complain to

that they are having bith pains?[/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000]

When an animal is screaming in apparent agony, looks like it is crying or even possibly dies after appearing to be in excruciating pain, then it's likely that people don't need to be told.

In any case, I suggest people look up the female spotted hyena and their pregnancy woes _ I wonder who the Eve of spotted hyenas pissed off, and what she did.

cgift:
ask yourself a question how did the first man come into being?

You know it's not a dichotomy, right?