₦airaland Forum

Workch:
Do you know scientific procedures?

Seems like you are not aware. What's you are showing me are darins observations and not his experimenrs and tests.

1. You make observations by looking at specimens, this is what Darwin did.
2. Then you create hypothesis from your observations. Darin propose evolution by natural selection after observing all these specimens.

3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Darwin never did this. It was done years after he died

4. Design a method and theory to explain your results. Darwin never did this, it was done after he died.



If you disgaree when show me the experiment specifically attributed to Darwin in science.
4.

Darwin provided tons of evidence for his hypothesis.
Where are the evidences of your deistic god?

Workch:
Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Darwin provided masses of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement calling it hypothesis.

Workch:
Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Darwin didn’t just wake up and claim there is “evolution”? Or that’s what he did?
He didn’t explain how he arrived at it?

Workch:
Darwin himself didn't prove his hypothesis, he had ideas from several species.

He couldn't prove that a species can change overtime through inheritance. He formulated the idea from his observations

Darwin didn’t just wake up one day and make a statement calling it hypothesis.
He observed, experimented and used others people ideas to arrive at its conclusion.

Workch:
Darwin proposed that species can change over time, that new species come from pre-existing species, and that all species share a common ancestor and this happens via natural selection.

Darwin himself didn't prove this claim. Other scientists years after him did and there were things that he proposed that were disproven as well along the line

Darwin didn’t just make a statement and call it hypothesis, how did darwin arrive at the conclusions?
He didn’t carry out experiments?

terrezo2002:
Do you know what you doesn't change the truth?

It exist only in your mythology as a character bwahahahaha

terrezo2002:
Satan, means The accuser
There is only one person with that character

Satan is a hebrew word and it’s a VERB, action word bwahahahah

Workch:
Nope, in science, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who brought the hypothesis should test it.

Charles Darwin established the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. He didn't prove it, other scientists tested it to prove it or disprove it. They found out that its true.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was a hypothesis he never tested, other scientists tested the idea by designing experiments, they found that it's true.

Stephen hawking formulated hawking radiation, it was tested and validated after he had died.


So yes, one can drop a hypothesis and another people invalidate it. Often times, this happens in science.

So now, can you design an experiment to invalidate a deistic god hypothesis?

Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

terrezo2002:
So will it be right if I say you too are a Satan?

It’s an hebrew word.
They use it till now in Israel. Like i said, “satan” is only a character in your mythology.
Yahweh is the protagonist, and satan is the antagonist, perfect movie bwahahahah

Workch:
science is all about making informed statements called hypothesis and then to design an experiment to test those hypotheses.

It becomes a fact when that hypothesis has been proven true.
Without an experiment to falsify a hypothesis, you cannot say that the hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to falsify a deistic god?

Before you bring out the hypothesis you should first prove it works, if you can’t prove it then it doesn’t work, it’s not my job to prove if your hypothesis is wrong or right.
Is like saying you have cure for hiv, okay, show us you have it. Not you saying I should prove you don’t have the cure.


Now, can you design a test to defend your “deistic god”, after you do it then i can test your defence.

terrezo2002:
You only know the definition of Satan, but you don't know the person of Satan.
There are many religions, but only one true religion.

Satan became a character in your mythology.
Even your yahweh was a satan.

Workch:
and how did you know that flying lions cannot exist?
Have you searched all planets in the universe?

It’s you that’s making the statement, it’s you that should prove it.

Workch:
That's what people refer to as God generally and I don't know if such a thing exist.

But “god” is an English word, different people call different things god, what qualifies something to be a “god”?

Workch:
I didn't make a claim that aliens exist.

It seems you are not getting my point

I get your point.
What I’m saying is before you make a statement you should have evidence for it, not you saying I should disprove your claim.

Workch:
God is probably someone who created the universe, that's a holistic definition.

So anyone that claims to create the universe is a god?
You just need to claim it?

Workch:
True, but lack of evidence is not lack of existence.

You can say aliens exist without evidence, we can dismiss because of lack of evidence , but it doesn't mean aliens don't actually exist.

How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

Workch:
I am not saying that a deistic god exist, I am saying that there's a claim that a deistic god exist, which is impossible to disprove.

So I don't know if God exist or not

If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

Workch:
When did I make a claim that the universe has to be created?

I don't know if the universe was created or not, it's impossible to know.

Then how did you arrive at this deistic god(gudan)?

author=OLAADEGBU post=120447322]

Before Antioch what were y’all called?

Workch:
this is not true, I am aware of all gods and I am sure that all of them do not exist but deistic god.

I know a method to test and invalidate all gods, I don't any to use to invalidate a deistic god. If you know any, It. Will revert me back to atheism or deism if need be

If the universe has to be created, what created God?

terrezo2002:
Yeah. That's because Christians are the one with the truth. Be a Christian and you will know the truth.

You made zero sense.
There are other characters in other religions.
Even the “satan” christians borrow from judaism, they don’t know what it means

OLAADEGBU:
🌌 Science and the Genesis narrative completely align.

Bwahahahah

OLAADEGBU:
To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

It is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99 percent agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc.—issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes or changes in spelling rules. No important theological issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the fifteenth century agree completely with manuscripts from the third century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2,000-plus years ago.

We should not be quick to say, "Oh, that is just a scribal error." The Bible's "errors" can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Discrepancies that cannot be explained—or are very difficult to explain—could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn't exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in clearing up any supposed Bible "error."

Source

You said nothing.
The book of genesis was written in different time and location than book of timothy and book of peter etc. So your verses on timothy and peter are only talking about that particular book not the whole bible that was complied by CANON not to forget they were written by unknown authors.
The four New Testament gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but were originally anonymous until attributed to them by the Church Fathers later in the second century..
The gospel of mark is the first to be written, and the other gospel used the book of mark to write theirs


the New Testament especially is the most corrected document in history, this is more than just copyist error, this are blatant edit and forgery, this is because the New Testament you base your life on, the only place where iesus chrestus is mentioned, was originally meant for the CHRESTIANS

“Satan” only exist in christian mythology.
When your “son of god” was alive he was a Judaist.

OLAADEGBU:
To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

It is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99 percent agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc.—issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes or changes in spelling rules. No important theological issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the fifteenth century agree completely with manuscripts from the third century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2,000-plus years ago.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html

You said nothing.
The book of genesis was written in different time and location than book of timothy and book of peter etc. So your verses on timothy and peter are only talking about that particular book not the whole bible that was complied by CANON not to forget they were written by unknown authors.
The four New Testament gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but were originally anonymous until attributed to them by the Church Fathers later in the second century..

the New Testament especially is the most corrected document in history, this is more than just copyist error, this are blatant edit and forgery, this is because the New Testament you base your life on, the only place where iesus chrestus is mentioned, was originally meant for the CHRESTIANS

OLAADEGBU:
To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html

the New Testament especially is the most corrected document in history, this is more than just copyist error, this are blatant edit and forgery, this is because the New Testament you base your life on, the only place where iesus chrestus is mentioned, was originally meant for the CHRESTIANS.

OLAADEGBU:
To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html

You said nothing.
The book of genesis was written in different time and location than book of timothy and book of peter etc. So your verses on timothy and peter are only talking about that particular book not the whole bible that was complied by CANON not to forget they were written by unknown authors.

OLAADEGBU:
Copyist errors does not detract from the fact the original manuscripts were inerrant.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html

Which original manuscript? They were not written in same century or same location so which original manuscript?
The one in torah?
Or the one in New Testament?

TradingGod:
you don't know the meaning of reference?

You should ask yourself that.

The paragraph you are reading is talking about how “yahweh was potrayed in the jewish bible” called tanakh.

TradingGod:
This is your worldhistory link that uses the bible as it reference



Stop confusing yourself

It didn’t, it explained how yahweh was portrayed in the jewish bible called tanakh.

Stop lying to yourself

TradingGod:
This is your worldhistory link that uses the bible as it reference



Stop confusing yourself

Where did it use it as reference? Can you read?

TradingGod:
guy rest

Even your 'holy grail' source uses the bible as it own source lol

Post the Wikipedia link of this page.
Hope you not lying because of yahweh?

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/