₦airaland Forum

1Sharon:
Excuse me? Was that mention for you?

Excuse you, when you quoted me earlier, did I directly mention you?

1Sharon:
Ofcourse you don't care because you're not a thinker.

Cain cannot scientifically be any other race but black.

You asked me questions, I answered and you didn't reply.

Part of the reasons i an selective who i answer to.

elated177:
Hilarious!

That's the point, I'm coming, please wait.

elated177:
Just answer the question. Like I stated above, it is not as clear-cut as you are thinking.

I am coming, be patient.

EMILO2STAY:
I understand your dodging tactics. but just to let you know the thread is already dead on arrival enjoy.

You made zero meaningful contribution.

elated177:
Don't flatter yourself too much, dude. Why do you find it difficult to answer a simple question?

Because I don't indulge people who cant figure my stance from the topic of my post and my write up. I mean it's plain English. So It's not just worth my effort.

elated177:
Again, slow down. Take a deep breath. It is a simple question. The answer may not be as plain as you are imagining it. Do you, needanswer, believe in the existence of the Creator of the heavens, the earth and the seas and everything in them? Yes or no will suffice.

When I have your time, I will come back and answer.

LordReed:
LMAO! I now know your challenge.

This online dictionary (Merriam-Webster) puts the verb form as either Assume or affirm or even to suggest.

elated177:
You need to slow down, dude. We are not in any form of competition. You should have just answered the simple question.

Please don't ask me obvious questions, where the answer is plain for you to grasp.

LordReed:
LMAO! I now know your challenge.

This other reference is the one you quoted online.

You left out the end.

LordReed:
LMAO! I now know your challenge.

It is your dictionary that's giving you a different definition, it can be used as to assume.

elated177:
Needanswer, do you believe in the existence of the Creator of all things?

I believe you can get that information on your own from my write up, it's too obvious.

LordReed:
LMAO! I dunno what is giving you the impression that I think dark energy is wrong or not a scientific hypothesis.

Go and read your previous comments from the beginning of this thread and see how clear it is for the BLIND to detect how you have been deviating and even discrediting proven facts.

You don't even know there is a difference between saying DARK ENERGY is a posit and the MARK UP of dark energy is a posit. if you said the later, you would have been correct scientifically but you said the former.

Dark energy is a fact and not a posit, it effects can be observed in the universe indirectly. Our scientific techniques have just not gotten to the stage required to identify it's make up or measure it, which is the posit or which is being postulated.

LordReed:
Huh? When did I call dark energy a false teaching? LoL. I said your saying scientists BELIEVE in dark enervy is not a fact, scientists posit dark energy as an explanation, they don't need to believe it.

You don't even know science position on dark energy and you are commenting on it. Dark energy is a fact because it is the only unseen force that explains why the universe is behaving the way it is behaving, what is been POSTULATED is the make up of dark energy and if we can detect it instrumently and not the EXISTENCE of dark energy


The name Dark energy is not the explanation please, if you don't know this then leave the science of the cosmos for those that know.

Since the beginning of your comments on my thread, you have just been deviating left, right and centre, bringing wrong fallacies and theories. I just they laugh inside me like sho, this guy think say na only atheist get MSC or PHD for science, you never sabi wetin they supp.

LordReed:
You are the one who made a statement and called it fact. Produce the fact.

Rather it's you who claimed it is false, no other atheist here has dared to call dark energy a false science teaching, so if only you claim it is FALSE then show us your scientific evidence.

EMILO2STAY:
lol@ I am a scientist. if you understand galaxies in and out then tell me how did you measure and detect it so as to come to such conclusion. science is confirmed by repeatable, testable and observable experiments, so tell me how you understand dark energy and space and galaxies using those scientific methods.

For someone who doesn't belief science believes in dark energy, it would be a waste of my time explaining it to you.

You already made an unscientific claim, let me recover from that first.

EMILO2STAY:
I understand perfectly the point your trying to make. but you used space, planets and galaxies to prove a point. these things mainstream science have claimed to have been measure and seen yet they lack biblical support. this is why i said you are shooting yourself on the foot.

you are using the wrong example. it can be used against you.

I am not you and you are not me, I am a scientist myself and I understand it in and out. So if science scares you then that's your take and not mine. And from your reply you don't even know what I'm up about. Let me handle it, you do your thing.

DappaD:
The Creation theory will give abiogenesis a run for its money any time any day. So in essence, those scientists hope that abiogenesis is true since it is widely accepted amongst them? Isn’t that the belief they have since they haven’t seen it with their own two eyes—which is similar to the belief in a God that Creationists haven’t seen?

Bro you are correct, science believe in three things, what can be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED. Abiogenesis falls under the third category of perceive.

EMILO2STAY:
tell me what I missed .

I am simply dissecting atheist logic, that only what can be SEEN or MEASURED is real, but there is also a third category science believe in, that is what can be PERCEIVED can also be real, even if you cant see or measure it.

Atheists fail to understand this third aspect which is what the write up is about and which you totally missed by a mile.

EMILO2STAY:
you should be talking about evidence of God from things that can be seen not things that cannot be seen. and again if got want to use planets and galaxies as an evidence for God, then you are speaking from the view point of atheism because this things were propagated from the view of atheist scientist with the aim of discrediting the Bible and by extension the existence of God.

You obviously read in a haste and understood nothing about my write up.

LordReed:
That is not a statement of fact. You are are the one doing all the believing here.

Don't waste your time with me, you either prove this statement of yours (which you can't) or just keep deceiving yourself.

LordReed:
You are the one saying scientists believe in dark energy, that is a most unscientific language.

Example of what?

Scientists believe in dark energy that's a statement of fact, if you don't believe, speak only for yourself.

LordReed:
Your topic heading says it all. You attempting to draw parallels between the dark energy hypothesis and faith in a god. You even go ahead to say scientists believe in dark energy, which they most certainly don't but you use that phrase so that you can get your point across. Scientists posit dark energy because they can something affecting the universe, that is totally not belief as you intend it to mean.

Wrong! If you are going to sound unscientific it's fine, but I am not interested in lecturing you on that.
And my topic heading isn't drawing any PARALLELS but citing Dark energy as an example.

LordReed:
Your point is logically fallacious. Dark energy hypothesis is not in the same class with belief in a god. That is why it's falsely equivalent.

Wrong! You are the one grouping them in the same class rather than seeing it only as an example.

EMILO2STAY:
your even shooting yourself on the foot with this write up.

Don't give me a blank response, be specific.

LordReed:
Okay I correct myself. It's not a god of the gaps argument even though its similar. However it is a fallacy of false equivalence. I will edit my inital post to reflect.

At least we can agree on one thing, which is - it's not a god of the gaps argument. As for the "fallacy of false equivalence", I don't stand on that ground either. Dark energy is a natural phenomenon and not equivalent to God in any way, there is no comparison.

I literal have to re-explain my simple logical point. This is it; just because something can't be proved by been seen or measured or both doesn't mean it doesn't exist, AS LONG AS YOU CAN STILL PERCEIVE IT IN OTHER WAYS WHICH MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY.

Dark energy is just a scenario to illustrate this in practical terms that science can relate too and not that it is an equivalent, so get my point correctly.

1Sharon:
Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

Have you ever seen a small child point out his father to his friends and then say with innocent joy and pride, “That’s my daddy”? God’s worshipers have every reason to feel similarly about Jehovah. The Bible foretells a time when faithful people will exclaim: “Look! This is our God.” (Isaiah 25:8, 9) The more insight you gain into Jehovah’s qualities, the more you will feel that you have the best Father imaginable.

This Father is not cold, aloof, or distant—despite what some austere religionists and philosophers have taught. We would hardly feel drawn to a cold God, and the Bible does not portray our heavenly Father that way. On the contrary, it calls him “the happy God.” (1 Timothy 1:11) He has feelings both strong and tender. He is “hurt at his heart” when his intelligent creatures violate the guidelines that he provides for their well-being. (Genesis 6:6; Psalm 78:41) But when we act wisely according to his Word, we make his “heart rejoice.”—Proverbs 27:11.

Our Father wants us to be close to him. His Word encourages us to “grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27) How, though, is it possible for mere humans to draw close to the Sovereign Lord of the universe?

1Sharon:
Since you know so much about God, explain what he looks like?

The Bible describes God as a spirit being. (2 Corinthians 3:17) As such, he is far superior to us and beyond our physical senses. He is “the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible,” says 1 Timothy 1:17. 

Our Creator is so superior to us that we cannot even begin to imagine what he looks like. “To whom can you people liken God, and what likeness can you put alongside him?” says Isaiah 40:18.

Even though we can cannot see God physically due to his nature, we can still know his personality and qualities

The more we discern someone’s qualities, the better we know that person, and thus our friendship can deepen. Similarly, the more we come to know Jehovah’s qualities, the better we will know what he is like, and thus our friendship can deepen. Of all God’s wonderful attributes, four are outstanding: his power (JEREMIAH 32:17), wisdom ( PSALM 104:24), justice ( PSALM 37:28), and love ( 1 JOHN 4: 8 ).

Of the four qualities, the one that predominates is love. It permeates everything God does. He exercises  his power, justice, and wisdom in a loving way. In fact, the Bible says something extraordinary regarding God and this quality. It says: “God is love.” (1 John 4: 8 ) Note that it does not say that God has love or that God is loving. Rather, it says that God is love. Love, his very essence, motivates him in all that he does.

LordReed:
Jamesid29, this is the person you should be explaining to what god of the gaps fallacy means.

At least it's obvious God of the gaps argument is not my position. You can believe that if you want.

LordReed:
LoL! You try hard but do yourself in by reinforcing the fact that you are exploiting gaps in knowledge.

I am not.

God of the gaps is a nonsense theory because God want us to learn how this world works. He created man to "dominate the earth and his environment" according to Genesis. Man can't dominate his environment if man doesn't learn all there is to learn about his environment and master the elements, can he? So that theory does not do it for me.

LordReed:
They know something is there because they can perceive the effects, they just don't know what it is which why they call it dark energy. Same with dark matter. Comparing this to a god you have no evidence for is a god of the gaps fallacy because you are trying to insinuate your god into a gap in knowledge. You can't do that for some other well understood phenomenon because it is well understood and there is no gap to exploit.

Wrong! I have trashed that already. This is not about God of the gaps, this is about believing something is true indirectly by what you can perceive about it, by the effects you observe that thing do. I have tons of such effects to back up God's existence, but you are rigidly contradicting science and the universe by going against such logic.

LordReed:
If I can perceive it why do I need to believe? I don't know what something is, is different from from believing something that's not even there.

I believe my use of the English grammar is easy to understand. Use the "perceive" in the context of Dark energy.

Knowledge of it can only be "perceive" indirectly from what is does and not directly because it can't be seen or measured.