HellVictorinho:


The DNA is not an amazing design.
Haven't you heard of deformities??
Haven't you heard of hereditary problems
Haven't you heard of genetic misdemeanors
Haven't you heard of cancerous cells
These things happen in the presence of the DNA.
Ultimately, the DNA is just a group of ageless indivisible objects that are arranged anyhow.

Like I said in a previous response, your statement is a slap to Engineers. For if they could build an information storage system like that found in the DNA, in fact, that person must win a Nobel Prize. Every scientists who understands the DNA to a large extent will definitely not agree with you on this except due to their materialistic bias as Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved". This is a statement of faith because he himself must have seen amazing design but his atheistic bias would not want him to attribute it to God. In fact, he suggested that life must have been planted by aliens on earth. such is the length that bias can take one to.

Now about deformities and the rest, it is known that mutation is a major cause of this beautiful and amazing structure just as computer virus attacks the amazing software of a computer. It is does not mean that the soft ware is not amazing, but rather, something was introduced which now corrupts it. And since cells have a way of making copies of themselves, and even passed on to the next generation, the defect caused by mutation is thus passed on to next generation. Then comes natural selection which helps in reducing the amount of deleterious mutation in a genome.
This is easily explained in the Christian world view as brought about by sin which brought corruption and degradation to the whole creation. Hence, we cannot attain the perfection that we all ought to be as it was in the beginning but will definitely get that in the world to come (no sin, disease or suffering).

Your last statement seem to imply that those errors happen "in the presence of the DNA" as if it is meant to be a law enforcement agent to stop those things. If that is true, then you don't understand what the DNA is in the first place, which one will not be disappointed that you said the DNA is not amazing..

Open your mind to "Test all things; (and then) hold fast what is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21

LordReed:


Because they all knew about boats and transporting things by boat? I don't think it's a far fetched idea for them to have similarities due to having similar environments.

I guess you missed my point which I emphasized with the charts I referred you to.
Please refer to the chart which I am posting again to see that it's not boat and water that I am talking about

FatherOfJesus:
We all are gonna believe that kangaroos hopped from Australia to Middle East 4000years sho just because you illiterates from the church said it. You are fools


Your stories doesn’t match with all the times and fossil records. Tell us when the Noah flood happened.

It easy for anyone following to see that you are just about making subjective mockery and not about getting new insights. This assertion is corroborated by how you make hand waving dismissal of arguments and how you've refused to learn new things. The result is you get emotional when you can't bear with better and sound arguments.

LordReed:


Every riverine and water bound community would have a story of a great flood won't they?

Yes, the should.
But how do you explain the parallels that is found in the Bible. See the chart below

FatherOfJesus:
Expalin how kangaroo join the ark in Middle East. Don’t give me the God did it answer because that will be a fallacy of “god of the gaps”

You are just happy to ignore answers to your questions and will go on to repeat them. That speaks volume.

I already explained that there are marsupial fossils in South America, Egypt and other countries (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY THAT KANGAROO FOSSILS), but it is now said that the Australian marsupials of which the kangaroo is part migrated from South America through Antarctica to Australia. If you read statement such as this in secular papers, I believe you wouldn't ask questions but take it as fact. But I explained that the world was a super continent such that Noah does not need to call for an Australian animal to begin to hop down because it is likely to be just around his locality. And the Bible made it clear that God made the animals come to him because the flood itself is an act of judgement by him. It is not a God of gaps, but it is what is known.

Like I said in one response, if you continue to deliberately wallow in ignorance, I will no longer take you serious as it can be shown that you either did not read rebuttals to your old objections or you have decided to allow ignorance take over

FatherOfJesus:
About the water covering Mount Everest, your answer shows that your lack basic idea of water cycle.

Another bull shit!!!

What has water cycle got to do with marine fossils on Mt. Everest?

Most of these wannabe atheists on NL will be glorying on ignorance, yet appearing to be informed after reading one or two ill-informed and worn out articles on anti-God websites

FatherOfJesus:
Who narrated the story of the flood from other civilizations if only Noah and his family survived?
All these back and forth doesn’t give any clue to the answer

It is your ignorance and your insistence of remaining ignorant that is the problem here. I maintain that if you had read flood literature, you won't be asking such questions again.
I talked about Babel dispersion and showed you a scientific chart which traced ALL human mtDNA migration from THREE which correspond to the THREE sons of Noah. Did you even check the chart. I guess you must be angry with yourself to see that something like that agrees with the Bible
I explained that their generations which continue to spread and diversify will all have such flood accounts which are being passed down orally from generation to generation.
It is not rocket science, it is just "common sense" as you called it.

I will not take you serious if you are bent on remaining ignorant just to prove your failed case. As you've shown that you are not interested in having answers but to deceive those who are ill informed

HellVictorinho:


Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.
It doesn't mean I know how God is.
If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist.
There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.
The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.

Since God has no structure,then God can't exist.

This logic is flawed and the fallacies committed are:
1. Fallacy of begging the question: You are yet to show us whether God has a structure or not before drawing a conclusion on such assumption
2. Non Sequitur fallacy: that something does not have a structure does not mean that it doesn't exist, hence, it does not follow
3. Fallacy of appeal to ignorance: You concluded that God does not exist because of your ignorance of God's "structure" (which you showed later)
4. The statement itself is self refuting. God does not exist, yet God does not have structure. One must have information about a thing (which shows that it exist) to know that it has structure or not

It doesn't mean I know how God is.

Back to square of 1. You claim that God has no structure, yet, you don't know how God is. Which one should we take?

If I know how God is,then God has a structure.
It's impossible to know how God exists when there is no how God can exist
This is rife with logical fallacies again:
1. Fallacy of false dilemma: because you can know how God is and still find out that he doesn't have a form
2. Appeal to ignorance again: because there is a way to know how God exists which you've rejected a priori
3. Fallacy of affirming the consequent: tying this statement with your first statement, you are inferring that God has no structure because you can't know how God is. The syllogism is shown below
a. if you know how God is, then God has a structure
b. you don't know how God is
conclusion: God has no structure.
The argument is invalid and not sound because of the fallacies listed and explained already

There's nothing amazing about the universe or life forms.

This is a statement of faith as it is a slap to human Engineers and Scientists who spend years to understand tiny fraction of the design found in life form to make amazing machines. Check the field of Biomimetics and tell the researchers there.
Anyway, it is what you want to believe, it does not mean that it is true

The complexities are the arrangements of several ageless indivisible objects that are exposed or conscious by chance.
In other words,these arrangements are exposed by chance.
This is another statement of faith and I thought we've dissected it and found it wanting already. We agreed that a simple statement "HellVictorinho" cannot be painted by chance, yet you prefer to believe that vast array of information which surpasses any human engineering was formed by chance. If Christians have this type of faith, they will definitely move mountains (lol)

FatherOfJesus:
If you say all civilizations recorded the flood and the flood myth said only Noah and his family survived the flood then who recorded the flood in those civilizations?
It’s common sense, did ghosts from those civilizations record the flood?

Very funny of you to make arguments from ignorance and still boast about it.
Now I never claimed that "all civilizations recorded the flood". That is you misrepresenting what I said and it would have been easier for you if you had tried to read about the flood from those who agreed that it did occurred.

Anyway, you have to understand what is called paradigm and framework with which data are being interpreted, such that it must be consistent with such framework. With that in mind, let me answer your question with COMMON SENSE
It is very consistent with the creation/flood model that most cultures in the world will have a flood story if those cultures actually descended from the three sons of Noah and scattered abroad during the Babel dispersal, carrying the flood story with them which is transmitted from generation to generation and is expected to differ with time but retain some parallels. The human mtDNA migration chart below equally agrees with the Bible that all humans can be traced back to 3

HellVictorinho:


It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho.

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.


If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.

It's impossible for something that is associated with humans only to be performed by anything except humans.
So, I will consider my name written on the wall as something that was determined by a human being.
The reason why Hell Victorinho is associated with a human being only is because that human being has a form or a structure that can induce Hell Victorinho
You are doing well.
This shows that you can't accept any naturalistic explanation EVEN IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE HUMAN THAT MADE THE PAINTING. Great!

Since God has no form or structure,then God can't induce anything.

This assumes you KNOW how God is. If that's true, how did you know that he has no form or structure?

If you think God has a structure,then you should be able to draw such a structure.

I never said anything about God having structure yet. You are the one who implied that. So you may please answer the question above on how you knew that he doesn't have one

Don't give me a picture from your book of Bible stories for Sunday school pupils.
After all you've seen me write, you still want to commit the unnecessary fallacy of question begging epithet. That's not a good way to continue the good job you are starting.

Now to your previous question about how the analogy is relevant to origin of life. I want to believe that you know how incredibly complex, the simplest life form is. It is so magnificent in that it cannot be compared to any modern day factory. No machine built by intelligent Human can compare to the so called simplest life form, not to talk of higher animals and then human. All life forms have coded information stored in their DNA which are so complex, in that they have the best known storage system, self repair system, copying system etc. In fact, the information in the Human DNA is so enormous that if they were to be printed in a book, it will be stacked from earth to the moon. Imagine such amazing engineering feat.
Now, if you can't take a naturalistic explanation for the formation of "HellVictorinho" on your wall, how do you find it comfortable to take such for something that no human has fully comprehend, not to talk of having the INTELLIGENCE to do it?
A rational explanation is that such amazing piece of Design is made by a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Now, the Bible (which has proved itself after so many attacks over many centuries and generation) has revealed that such HIGHER INTELLIGENCE is God. It only take a strong bias to say otherwise.

In simple terms;
only intelligent minds are capable of making stuff that are intelligible or appeared to be designed.
Life forms have the appearance of complex design

hence it can be concluded that an intelligent mind is responsible for the complex designs in life forms

FatherOfJesus:
lol

Funny? Yeah! But I guess your plans now did not work. Since you can't answer his or my objections, but may use a red herring as other atheists on NL do.

HellVictorinho:


How does the existence of life forms or the universe relate to your analogy
What does the bucket of paint represent??
You have to determine the relevance of your analogy to the matter on ground.

Now you're talking.
Well, I wrote a response to five (5) points and you answered with just "why not chance". I wouldn't know what you are replying to which is why I gave a general answer to chance vs supernatural intervention questions.

Anyway, I would love to get an answer to my question as to which explanation you would rationally choose and why, then I can show you how my analogy relate to existence of life forms.

I'll be waiting for your answer in order to proceed

HellVictorinho:


Why not chance?
Why the supernatural?

Why not chance?

Because the odds are astronomically improbable. If you have a bucket of paint in your house and you went out, only to come back to see that there is a painting on the wall which reads "HellVictorinho" in a beautiful manner, what will be your explanation for the appearance of the painting on the wall of your house?

Why the supernatural?
Using the scenario above, if someone has explained that it was painted by an intelligent man, would you reject it because you cannot see the intelligent man in favor of some explanation that suggest that 'a small earth tremor occurred such that the house shook and the cover went flying, causing the paint to splash on the wall but another chemical also splashed in such a way that it cleaned excess paint but leaving the impression of "HellVictorinho" on the wall'.

Which would you prefer to rationally believe?

FatherOfJesus:
First of all the story can be proven to be borrowed from mythology that predates the Bible (it’s quite clearly been lifted from Gilgamesh).

Second of all no other civilisations mention a global flood.

Third of all there is no geological evidence for a flood having taken place.

Fourth of all the water must’ve come from somewhere, and disappeared somewhere. Remember, to cover the entire planet in water you’d have to reach 8848m over the sea (to cover Mt. Everest). That’s quite a lot of water.

Fifth of all it’s impossible to build an ark, especially a wooden one, that can hold all species. Ken Hamm’s ridiculous Ark experience used modern tools, hundreds of people, and yet didn’t manage to construct an ark that would by any means be sea worthy. The dimensions given for the ark in the bible are far too small. If you add in the fact that you’d need food for all those animals, that a lot of those animals would prey on each other, and that all of them would produce tons and tons of waste products that a crew of 8 would have to take care of, you see how unreasonable it is.

Sixth of all it’s impossible for those species to survive migration from their native climates and locations to the Middle East, then back again once the water receded. Can you imagine a sloth making it from Mt Ararat back to South America? Picture a kangaroo bouncing all over the Asian continent then hopping from island to island back home to Australia?

Seventh of all the rate of the rainfall would’ve had to have been such that the rain alone would’ve wreaked havoc on the ark, and the erosion caused by such intense rainfall would’ve ruined entire countries (imagine 40 days straight of car wash being applied to your garden…)

So no, the biblical story of Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood is merely a myth. Whether the myth it borrowed from, Gilgamesh, is based on a local flood or tsunami, or if it’s pure fiction, is hard to tell. What we can be sure of is that a family of 8 did not chummy up with all the world’s non-aquatic species (though it should be noted that some aquatic species would probably not have survived a global flood either, due to the mixing of salt and sweet water) on a single ark and then survive 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain, followed by 340 more days waiting for the Earth to dry again before disembarking and beginning the long and arduous journey back to their respective continents.

What do I know? for an ardent Christian, the conclusion would be God did it. let’s dont question it, let’s dont use our brains here.

First of all the story can be proven to be borrowed from mythology that predates the Bible (it’s quite clearly been lifted from Gilgamesh)
Now, this is what you want to believe. Epic of Gilgamesh is not the only global flood story around. So do all flood story borrow from the epic even when they were distant apart such that they could not have met themselves (according to an atheistic reckoning)

Second of all no other civilisations mention a global flood.
This is a great lie. As shown above that over 200 hundred cultures around the world have flood story having parallels with the Biblical flood; from the Eskimos in Alaska, to Siberia, to Mia tribe in China, to the Aborigines of Australia, to Tanzania and the list continues.

Third of all there is no geological evidence for a flood having taken place.
What would serve as geological evidence to you? Adjovi already talked about the grand canyon and explain how canyons have been observed to form with a local flood, extrapolating it to the catastrophic flood that was described in the Bible. You just made a handwaving dismissal and have also REFUSED to get answers. That speaks volume

Fourth of all the water must’ve come from somewhere, and disappeared somewhere. Remember, to cover the entire planet in water you’d have to reach 8848m over the sea (to cover Mt. Everest). That’s quite a lot of water.
This is another bull shit. How else do you explain the presence of MARINE FOSSILS on Mt. Everest if it was not under water at some point. Again, rephrasing your logic, it has been shown that if the whole world was to be flatten, it will be under water, some kilometers deep. Argue this with your secular scientists.
The water did not need to disappear. It is known that high places rose and some are still rising, so if every where was levelled, a catastrophic plate tectonics would provide avenue for the irregular topography on the earth, causing all water to run to the oceans while dry land rose above see level. This is hard science and not some fanciful ideas

Fifth of all it’s impossible to build an ark, especially a wooden one, that can hold all species
While I cannot give a full explanation to this (which was why I offered to provide link to answers but you rejected, proving that you are just here to deceive), your premise is severely faulty. You should be conversant with the flood literature before rehashing old and worn out argument. This is because, no inform creationist believe in FIXITY OF SPECIES. This means that the model predict a rapid speciation from the FEW original kinds which would disembark from the ark. Hence, Noah does not need to have all species, rather, BIBLICAL KINDS (which may range up to the family level in taxonomy).
So the premise is faulty, hence your conclusion is invalid to start with.

Sixth of all it’s impossible for those species to survive migration from their native climates and locations to the Middle East, then back again once the water receded. Can you imagine a sloth making it from Mt Ararat back to South America? Picture a kangaroo bouncing all over the Asian continent then hopping from island to island back home to Australia?
Again, this is with a faulty premise. It is not enough to just copy and paste from an antiGod site, you should be diligent enough to check for rebuttal, but you already show that you are not even interested but to deceive the simple.
It is a proven fact that the world was joined together before as islands are still being formed. Hence, the creation/flood model explains that all the animals that would not need cross any oceans and it was written that God BROUGHT them to Noah. He does not need to drag them.
Marsupials fossils have been found in South America, which shows that they may migrate to different places but may have adapted and survived in Australia. And animals have been seen to migrate from places to places using vegetative bridges which should be abundant just after a flood of such magnitude.
Again, you have opportunity to seek answers if you want as I don't have much time to refute in details

Seventh of all the rate of the rainfall would’ve had to have been such that the rain alone would’ve wreaked havoc on the ark, and the erosion caused by such intense rainfall would’ve ruined entire countries (imagine 40 days straight of car wash being applied to your garden…)
This is the worst of all your points as it again is founded on a false premise. Again, Adjovi explained that the water did not come from rain fall alone but you dismissed him with no argument.
The Bible said "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened". This shows that there was a catastrophic event (which was modelled by Dr John Baumgardner, an expert in catastrophic plate tectonics) which must be accompanied with geological activities such that water vapor escapes and condenses back as rain.


Non of your deceptive points hold value, they have been explained but you seem not to want such explanations as it may disturb your intentions to lure the gullible.

for anyone who want to learn more, this link have more than the answers that you may want on the Biblical flood.
https://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers

FatherOfJesus:
Dont provide links, I have read a lot before coming up with this.
Provide logical and evidential objections to the 7 points.
The flood is fake

I just read through and I saw how you just make hand waiving dismissal of adjovi's points. It prove my prediction true that you are not interested in finding answers, which is why you rejected my offer to provide links where you can get answers.

FatherOfJesus:
Dont provide links, I have read a lot before coming up with this.
Provide logical and evidential objections to the 7 points.
The flood is fake

You are not ready to dash your beliefs, this I think is why you don't want to check what I have to see if you are conversant with them.
Your points are not what I have the time to make a rebuttal which is why I resort to providing you with where to get the answers yourself.

LordReed:


You said (emphasis mine):
Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?



LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.



There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain. Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?



Why can't a subjective mind know that such a thing is true?



Did you miss this:

Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.

EDITED

So can you show me historical records that is not the Bible that show a supernatural creation?
I don't need to show you any since it is impossible (if just anybody have such history, then it can't be regarded as a SUPERNATURAL CREATION again) but you just showed what is consistent with atheistic worldview that you've been trying to deny by rejecting the Bible a priori.
And I already explained in simple statement why the Bible can be regarded as recording history but the atheistic bias would not allow you

LoL! So you basically just said all cosmologists are not scientists. This is really hilarious. Cosmology is a branch of science that deals with the origins of the universe so yeah buddy the question is a scientific one. I dunno why you are butting heads against a simple analogy intended to show that we should use the right tools for the right jobs, square pegs in square holes.
Again, you've misrepresented my point here. I emphasized that how the universe began cannot be known by science because it cannot be observed, repeated nor tested; this are the pillars of the scientific method. And cosmology is not regarded to be in same ranks with the science which follows the scientific methods such as Physics, Chemistry, Physiology.
Finally, this branch of (historical) science is used as a tool such that data are interpreted according to a philosophical position, and should not be put in same category with that philosophical position which has been the crux of my argument. Atheism use cosmology as a TOOL to answer question about the universe such that it must be consistent with its worldview (no Creator must be allowed)

There is no magic involved. Our studies of what consciousness is are yet in their infancy however no study has shown consciousness to exist beyond the workings of the physical brain.
The fact that the mechanism which translate workings of neurons to consciousness is unknown should not make anyone claim that neurons working together produce consciousness in the first place.
If consciousness (mental state, awareness, perception to music and the rest) are just about the brain chemistry, then all should have same consciousness as same matter have same properties. But that is not the case, each human have different consciousness and the split brain experiments are revealing some mind blowing data which suggest that consciousness transcends brain chemistry

Again you are pointing at a gap in our knowledge and trying to aver supernatural causation. Will you be able to provide proof of a supernatural causation instead?
Everything about that is consistent with the Christian worldview. That there is soul of a person which is unique to that person only, that is, the self awareness of such person. Again, a thought experience from the unified consciousness of split brain suggest that if the two halves of a split brain is placed in two persons, both will have same consciousness of the original person. This is because people still remain conscious no matter what hemisphere of the brain that is affected.
A simple scenario is:
Person M has brain composed of matter A and he is conscious. If A is split into two; b and c, then since from our knowledge, b and c are not identical, it can be said that b is a form of matter different from c. But empirical observations show that person M will always be conscious whether b is functional or c. This suggest that person M is conscious (retaining self awareness and identity) with at least, two (2) different matter. This shows that consciousness transcends beyond just matter.

Statement in bold was what you were doing that prompted me to point you to this resource. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are 2 different things so for you to conclude that abiogenesis has being disproved by Pasteur showed you were lacking in knowledge of what abiogenesis is. Secondly, this was also to show you that this a completely different field from evolution so stop asking for evolution to answer a question it cannot address.
Very funny. You assumed for me and accused me of not knowing what abiogenesis is just because I mentioned Pasteur (who demolished the idea that life come from non life which was borne out of an atheistic presupposition to exclude God) but must have ignored the best case for it that I talked about when I mentioned the Miller-Urey experiments (which was also motivated by same atheistic presupposition to still try to prove that life can arise from non life). That's pathetic.
You failed to show how my definition is different from your definition (a good tactic of many atheists?) and ignored the concluding paragraphs that I quoted which showed that abiogenesis is just a blind faith that has no evidence for getting life from non life (after billions of dollars experiments)
Those are what I'm interested on. I'm not falling for your red herrings.
Lastly, I already showed that they are all related to one worldview . Else, what is the point of telling me how we get all life forms from one single life form and want me to not talk about how that single life form come about?

FatherOfJesus:
First of all the story can be proven to be borrowed from mythology that predates the Bible (it’s quite clearly been lifted from Gilgamesh).

Second of all no other civilisations mention a global flood.

Third of all there is no geological evidence for a flood having taken place.

Fourth of all the water must’ve come from somewhere, and disappeared somewhere. Remember, to cover the entire planet in water you’d have to reach 8848m over the sea (to cover Mt. Everest). That’s quite a lot of water.

Fifth of all it’s impossible to build an ark, especially a wooden one, that can hold all species. Ken Hamm’s ridiculous Ark experience used modern tools, hundreds of people, and yet didn’t manage to construct an ark that would by any means be sea worthy. The dimensions given for the ark in the bible are far too small. If you add in the fact that you’d need food for all those animals, that a lot of those animals would prey on each other, and that all of them would produce tons and tons of waste products that a crew of 8 would have to take care of, you see how unreasonable it is.

Sixth of all it’s impossible for those species to survive migration from their native climates and locations to the Middle East, then back again once the water receded. Can you imagine a sloth making it from Mt Ararat back to South America? Picture a kangaroo bouncing all over the Asian continent then hopping from island to island back home to Australia?

Seventh of all the rate of the rainfall would’ve had to have been such that the rain alone would’ve wreaked havoc on the ark, and the erosion caused by such intense rainfall would’ve ruined entire countries (imagine 40 days straight of car wash being applied to your garden…)

So no, the biblical story of Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood is merely a myth. Whether the myth it borrowed from, Gilgamesh, is based on a local flood or tsunami, or if it’s pure fiction, is hard to tell. What we can be sure of is that a family of 8 did not chummy up with all the world’s non-aquatic species (though it should be noted that some aquatic species would probably not have survived a global flood either, due to the mixing of salt and sweet water) on a single ark and then survive 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain, followed by 340 more days waiting for the Earth to dry again before disembarking and beginning the long and arduous journey back to their respective continents.

What do I know? for an ardent Christian, the conclusion would be God did it. let’s dont question it, let’s dont use our brains here.

You are not aware of body of literature in favor of the flood, hence you seem to rehash the old and worn out objections and assumptions about the flood. If you are willing, I can provide links that you may find answers to your objections
Just that you will need to be able to read wide as some are technical journals, to understand them.

Dtruthspeaker:


He and his kind like being as ghosts, floating all over the face of the earth meanwhile, they are earth-men or ground-men and they start as one or represent that they are one.

But when they see that there falls-ground has been broken or shall be broken, they refuse to stand as earth man as they have represented but rather Transform into "ghosts" flee from their ground and completely abandoning it as though it was never their land and quickly scooting away into other places.

Evil spirits are they Truly and not earth-men!

You rightly know him. And I once again appreciate your genuine concern earlier. God bless you

kingxsamz:


Eyah... Seems like I hurt this one.
You can keep crying sha.
If me typing "lol" is what's disturbing your peace today maybe you should take sometime off the internet. And I didn't even quote you o. The person I quoted isn't even crying. You're crying on his behalf and calling your colleague to come and support you.
Predictable my ass. shift.

My bad for not telling you that it is the same person. I made that known to the person I have been having a good intellectual discussion with - lordreed.

I wouldn't have bothered to reply you but I just needed to make corrections to your assumptions.

Take care Sammy

LordReed:


Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said.

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.

Give example of an absolute truth.

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.

It's not a strawman because that is exactly what you asking of me. You are pointing to something that can't be explained in nature and saying it has supernatural origins, I should just take your word for it. You cannot give a demonstration of what this supernatural is, you merely point to a gap in knowledge and say there! No sir, I won't take your word for it, maybe we should wait for Jesus to return maybe then we'll get an explanation and proof, yes?

Let me point this out first, I have engaged your argument fairly by treating what you say, but you seem to be making a red herring fallacy as seen in most of your response here
Show me where historians have acknowledged a supernatural creation apart from what the Bible said
Now this is a red herring as it can easily distract one from the point I raised earlier. So, I'm not falling for it and won't address it

Is how did the universe begin a philosophical question or a scientific one?
This is part of group of philosophical questions that science can be used to attempt to answer. Anyway, science cannot also answer HOW the universe began because it is a one time event which cannot be repeated, hence cannot be observed and tested - not following the scientific method.
This should not distract your fallacy of false analogy anyway

Did I say consciousness does not follow physical laws? I don't understand your objection. You very well acknowledged emergent properties how then is consciousness different?

Again, I never said nor implied what you wrote here. I said "...atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows (OBEY) to[b] produce[/b] consciousness/reasoning"

A study that shows that consciousness is not an emergent physical property of the brain will disprove what I am saying won't it? Find such a study to show me that I am wrong.
It has been proposed that emergent properties of neural cells produce consciousness, but there is no way to show that it is. In fact, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Matter is known to have new properties when it combines in a way which is usually known by physical laws. I used the absorption and emission of photons of different wavelength earlier; it is repeatable and KNOWN. But here, we are being told that conglomeration of the different parts of the brain (magically) produce consciousness which is not even a property of matter in the first place

Give example of an absolute truth.
A rectangle has two lines of symmetry

Start here: https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
After you've read it let's discuss it.
I was disappointed when you showed a link that definitely explained what was not different from what I said earlier that abiogenesis talks about LIFE FROM NON LIFE and went on to accuse me of not knowing what it meant. This is just funny
The first line which provided the definition according to your link reads "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth" [All emphasis are mine].
And despite the billions of dollars poured into such research to just help show that God is not needed for origin of life (consistent with an atheistic worldview), this is one of the conclusions made from your adored link (which is supposed to teach me what I do not know about abiogenesis):
[center]There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides[/center]

kingxsamz:


Eyah... Seems like I have been giving you and Image123 sleepless nights. And I only typed "lol" o. Don't worry you'll be fine. At this point, Image123 wakes up at night to go through all the posts I made for a day. Maybe you can do the same. Afterall, you're doing it for the lord.

It's because of claims such as this that always bring you out.
When was the last time I make attempt to correct you erroneous claims?
Who quoted who first in this thread?
Even if you are quoted (by me or him) it is to point out an error and make corrections to such error (which you seem to feel that you are so important that one needs to quote you). You on the other hand is not interested in that. You wrote "lol" to a statement and was asked to bring your rebuttal (knowing you can't), then you didn't; fulfilling the predicition

kingxsamz:


Nah, I don't need to refute anything.
The statement on its own sounds funny. It's a joke itself.

Prediction made
Prediction fulfilled
Like Image123 said sometimes ago, you are easy to predict and I noticed that your fellow man has come to support.

But God loves you both if you open your mind

LordReed:


LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty.

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

What does absolute truth mean?

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind.

LoL. You said you accept science, you said science has Christian roots but when asked to apply this same science you approve of to your claim of supernatural creation suddenly you need a special category. This right here is the intellectual dishonesty
This your response assumes that science have answers to all questions. Science is only descriptive and not prescriptive, and cannot prove ALL THINGS. The Christian understands that supernatural creation (and other concepts such as morality, or repeating what has happened in history) are beyond the scope of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and would not think of using as a tool to describe them. Rather, history itself, which is recorded in the Bible (which has shown itself to be true even by the person Jesus) is used as a tool to know that there was a supernatural creation.
And before I leave this part, I don't want to assume you are equating science to naturalism anyway.

An astrophysicist doesn't have the expertise an agricultural scientist has and vice versa so why on earth, when you want to learn about planetary motion, would you go to an agricultural scientist? Or when you want to learn about crop planting, you don't go to an astrophysicist. My analogy is on point.

I maintain that science is a tool that can be used by anyone to answer questions. And in this case, the tool is used such that it should be consistent with a certain worldview which is Atheism. So your analogy does not follow again because you are talking about fields of knowledge whereas, atheism is a philosophical position while science is a tool that is being used by any philosophical position.

By your inference then colour should not exist since atoms don't have colour or may be forests cannot exist since a tree cannot make a forest. You forget that things in conglomeration acquire properties that exceed the properties of the conglomerating individuals. A neuron does not have consciousness but when it, in conjuction with several billion others, fire in a particular pattern consciousness arises.
This again is appealing to the emergent properties of matter but from your examples, it is a physical law that atoms emit or absorb light of different wavelengths (which itself is what we see as colours). Also, forest is just a high density of trees; i.e. the plenty trees does not change anything. In fact, that analogy again is non sequitur neurochemical activities to produce consciousness/reasoning is not same as plenty of trees called forest. Hence, emergent properties still follow physical laws while atheists never provide the laws that the matter in the brain follows to produce consciousness/reasoning.

I can't find any scientific study that concludes that a mind can exist separate from from the body or persist after death. If you have one link it here.

I never said anything that relates to this
What does absolute truth mean?
What is known to be TRUE at all times

You obviously don't know what abiogenesis is, go learn about it so you can discuss intelligently about it.
Sorry Prof, you may point out to me what abiogenesis means as what I've learned is what I summarized earlier. Or could it be that since your worldview need abiogenesis, you are ready to dismiss the fact I said it has been put to death
You could point out what it is as I did with your question of absolute truth

What you want me to accept is you saying look at the trees therefore god. That is not sufficient. I have seen no supernatural being supporting the existence of the universe nor has one been demonstrated, I sure won't take your word for it. Provide me sufficient demonstration of your supernatural and your gods and I will change my mind
Your first statement is obviously a straw man, hence the second is invalid.
You cannot see the intermolecular forces holding atoms together but you know that they exists, though cannot account for the origin of such laws. This is what we refer to as the action of the law giver who put set those running.
Historically, it is a fact that Jesus existed, died and resurrected, with the last action not explainable by natural laws. Coupled with his claims and endorsement of the scriptures before him which clearly talked about God and supernatural, that should suffice. But, atheistic bias would not allow (I guess).

LordReed:


Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book.

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so.

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up.



Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds.

Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book
That's the problem, the "ancient book" is being rejected since it is the sole authority. Like the great G. K. Chersterton said in his debate with atheist Anthony Flew (who later got converted) that if archaeological and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible were to be discarded, the very fact that Jesus came (assuming that you don't reject the historicity of Jesus due to atheistic BIAS) who died and resurrected is enough testimony to the reliability of the "ancient book". So I wouldn't allow you to put me in a position of abandoning Jesus' own testimony for your unfair criteria. There is no valid reason for rejecting is except for the atheistic a priori bias

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so
That's a fallacy of false analogy and non sequitur. Science is just a tool which can be used by anyone. It is not a worldview like atheism, hence your analogy does not follow

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity
Simple explanation: there is no material thing that has consciousness, hence, the matter in the brain does not produce consciousness (as the brain alone does not have consciousness)
If it were to be, then we can never have absolute truth. In fact, science will not work because there's no way to know that the activities in Newton's brain is the correct one. This implies that we are not responsible for our actions since they are the workings of the reactions of matter in our brain. This discussion will not happen in the first place.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up
Of course, i can't be in the world of worldviews without knowing the strengths and weakness of different camps. Abiogenesis - life from non life; which has been put to death by Louis Pasteur, only to be given attention by the Miller-Urey experiment.
And I maintain that whether biological, chemical or cosmic evolution, these are still parts of the naturalistic explanation that MUST exclude God in answering questions of how we came to be here. Even here on NL, folks will rehash statements such as "I know that we are product of some dead stars". This statement has combined the three evolutions (lol) together. Which is why I laugh when atheists try to remove the difficult parts when arguing for naturalistic explanation for all things (Prof Richard Lewontin said "... for we cannot allow a divine foot".

Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds
There are evidence for supernatural and God but the atheistic bias will mostly come in the way. It can't be argued that there was and have been no miraculous events (which is a SPECIAL way god upholds the universe in contrast to the REGULAR way such as laws of nature).
So the statement above clearly demonstrate that matter is not just out there (implying from your rejection of supernatural) but you would not change your mind because of bias which itself is a dogma as against your claim.

Image123:


You keep "forgetting" to answer my questions. Your answers will help you. Anyway, not to complicate things, lol. God's standard is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Summarily, He's in another class. Perspective.

Welcome Brother
He answered with a red herring already by appealing to morality which has been the crux of my argument with him that according to his belief in no God, he does not have any OBJECTIVE BASIS for morality. That does not mean that atheist cannot be moral, in fact, their morality is a testament of God's consciousness in man

kingxsamz:

Lol...

Oh! Sammy is here. What is your rebuttal to the statement "Christianity actually makes a sane society"?
I predict you won't refute just like my new friend hellvictor

budaatum:


I hope you can therefore understand why Lordreed will ask you to go have your argument "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", and not with him.

He has his own worldview you see, but you want to ignore that and strawman him "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", as if there is some agreement of you both having read the same literature.

I hope you can therefore understand why Lordreed will ask you to go have your argument "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", and not with him.
I clearly understand buda but it doesn't make sense to wear an enemy's armour to attack and then claim not to belong to such enemy when attacked, asking the defender to go an attack the main enemy. That's what I'm pointing out

He has his own worldview you see, but you want to ignore that and strawman him "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", as if there is some agreement of you both having read the same literature
I guess my simple analogy explains why I am not attacking straws here.
We don't need to agree to have read from a certain literature when he echoes what the vast majority of such literature says (but removing what appears to be soft targets just as some too have tried to do. He is not the fist person in my encounter anyway)

LordReed:


Maybe you should get them to come do a rap battle with you. LoL!

Lol

LordReed:


You wrote Christianity or atheism, are they the only positions on the issue?

Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.

It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to.

You wrote Christianity or atheism, are they the only positions on the issue?
I just checked my statement again and notice that you see to rip it out of context. I maintain that I never implied that Atheism is opposite of Christianity. I used the statement "... whether Christianity or Atheism" to buttress the point that THERE ARE UNIFYING PRESUPPOSITIONS OR AXIOMS THAT BRINGS ALL THE OFFSHOOTS TOGETHER THOUGH THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT "VERSION" OF SUCH SYSTEMS.

Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.
Because there is no better explanation, hence, folks like you tend to shy away from such questions but would REJECT supernatural creation. So which is which? Why rejecting the notion of supernatural creation and at the same time, having nothing to do with same question?

Again, "Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere...", which is which? It does not answer, yet it has to find explanations elsewhere?
Most atheists are the ones who actually trumpet the alleged science and religion controversy which is why I laugh at them for such ignorance for not knowing that modern science (of observation and experimentation) as we know it was founded and flourished with a Christian presupposition. Again, just like the crux of this argument, it was borrowed from another worldview as it is not consistent with a generic atheistic's one. (you may argue with wealth of atheistic literature which tends to dismiss consciousness [since atheism cannot account for it through natural process] by suggesting that our reasoning are results of mere chemical and nuerochemical activities of the brain)

It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to
Again, this is another desperate "evolution" of evolution. How can we talk about evolution when there is nothing in the first place that mutation or natural selection will act on? So I'm not forcing anything here, rather, atheists are removing every soft targets (which is intellectual dishonesty). Biological evolution truly does not talk about how the first life form came to be but it is clearly PART of the alternatives put forward in answering questions that about worldveiws.

So like I said, atheism keep "evolving" by removing soft targets, hence discussion like this is futile since it can be predicted that another presupposition which can't withstand 'blow' may be removed in the future

LordReed:


I don't think I want to have this conversation with you since you don't want to take correction because I don't know how many times I'll have to point out that there is nothing like atheistic worldview and I certainly do not have an atheistic worldview. If you cannot let go of this your grip on what has pointed out to be wrong then you are not worth having a conversation with.

You can't tell me that there's nothing like atheistic worldview. It's on record that atheist always remove whatever would serve as stumbling block from their belief system to the extent of desperately changing the definition of atheism even when the a priori bias they have towards theism betrays them. Hence it is futile having discussion since as in this case, soft targets are being excluded, just like the example I gave of you making a claim that we arrive here through natural processes (which you must be referring to evolution) but you wouldn't love to describe what started the process in the first place as that is another soft target.
Therefore, I share your last statement (as advised by Dtruthspeaker earlier) that "you are not worth having a conversation"

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you for your encouraging words, may The Lord continue to give us His Strength to tear the-evils kingdom down!

Amen
God bless you