₦airaland Forum

if u believe aliens are going to invade the earth to bring about the end of the world. . . then u can also believe in global warming.

and have u come across this piece of news: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/leaked_mail_urge_to_hide_drop_in_EFwfj3Fx7WGTe3BuOXtplK

mazaje:
This goes to all the YEC in the house (OLAADEGBU, No2Atheism) Since you guys love using science to support your various theories that the universe is 6000 years old, I will love to see your scientific method of dating that shows that the earth and the universe are both 6000 years old. Science has provided objective and credible method to prove that the earth/ the universe is much more than 6000 years old, since you guys disagree with the scientific method for dating the earth and the results it has shown what credible scientific methods do you guys have to show that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old?

Why is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe wrong?

stop idolizing science. The credibility of scientific insights have been brought to question over and over again. There is yet no reason to believe that the earth is billions of years old or that the chimpanzee-like species found in forests are humans who ever walked on the surface of the earth.

Pastor AIO:
Please o, just to address the alpha and omega matter.  I just want to draw attention to the fact the alpha and omega are nothing other than 2 letters in the greek alphabet.

The only literal interpretation of someone saying they are the alpha and the omega would be that they are letters of alphabet.  No reference to any divinity here.

However if we want to understand it as a metaphor for something else then we have a number of choices.

Alpha and omega being the first and the last letters of the alphabet suggests that he is saying that he is there at the beginning and will be there at the end.  No reference to any divinity here. 

Or that as alpha and omega are the boundaries of the alphabet then he is a boundary for everything that exists.  Still no reference to divinity.


I am reminded also of the reference to 2 adam in early christian christology.  Perhaps Jesus is identifying with Adam.  Even then there is no reference to divinity.

The above assertions are FALSE.

how does being alpha and omega make no reference to divinity? and how does alpha and omega imply presence at the point of events?
have u ever  read john 1:3?

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=362149.msg5072351#msg5072351 date=1260280457]Young man, you enjoy shooting yourself in the leg. Your defination disqualifies jesus as God. How come your almighty  jesus said he did not  know the last hour. Was he lying or juest playing his usual  human games like eating, crying, dying etc[/quote]this requires a thorough analyses/explanation. . . I am sure I dont want to get involved in educating ur ignorance . . .at least not now.

KunleOshob:
This is really very evasive, in which context was son used to translate son to father in the bible


On your question of Alpha and Omega, i have already answerd that. On the issue of how many Gods there are in heaven there is one God almighty and he is not three in one God but one single and infinite deity. As i said earlier the son is not the Almighty but a likeness of the almighty so stop confusing issues and read your bible very well.

whats the meaning of the above? . . . .are u talking to illiterates? what is the relationship between the Gods in heaven? and what does it mean to be the son of God, with regards to Jesus, and also put into context where He said it in the bible and the reaction of the listeners?

Pastor AIO:
so when we learn in the book of Job that the sons of God were gathered and Satan was amongst them does that mean that they are all God, and most shockingly of all, so is Satan?

So when the bible talks about the manifestation of the sons of God. . . . what was it talking about?
Can u stop peddling lies and mixing up theories. the sons of God who gathered in job, we saw many of them appear in the bible. . .did they accept worship of any form from man?
whats the difference between their sonship and the sonship of Jesus?. . . .

KunleOshob:
I think i am going to have to go back to school to take further lessons in English before i can comprehend your use of English. Judging form this it means i am the same person as my father i laugh in tongues.

would it not be ridiculous to interpret son to mean the same thing as we have now in english language, considering the context in which it was used?

and when are u going to answer my questions?

more conspiracy theories

A. kunleOshob = PastorAIO = OLAADEGBU

B. Deepsight = Krayola = Olabowale

C. Mazaje = Toneyb = Abuzola = Uplawal = Ogaga4luv

KunleOshob:
Thanx for the response, can you now explain what the phrase "Son of God" is within the context of our discussion?

Son of God simply means God . . , . this is obvious from the reaction of the listeners when Jesus called Himself the Son of God. . .they wanted to stone Him.
When Jesus said "before Abraham was I am". . . they also knew the meaning. Jesus was the "I am that I am" that appeared in the burning bush.

Can u now start answering my own questions?

uplawal:
i wish all nairalanders can just meet up somewhere

and u think nairalanders will come and allow u and abuzola bomb us all for allah

its abuzola all the way

jagunlabi:
Kindly leave my father out of this and face the theme of the thread squarely.If it scares you, then don't bother.

No, not at all. . .there is nothing u have said that scares me. . . .I am simply perplexed at the ridicule of ur ignorance.
in one breadth u acknowledge a creator, yet claim him to be different from the xtian God and u subsequently call urself an atheist. . . . .these are the ranting of a confused person.

Kay 17:
is that your new line? your religion like all others is built on belief and not facts, thus you cannot prove God because he don't exist. atheists are those who do not believe.

what an amazing display of folly.
How do u reconcile proving the existence of God to His actual existence?
The rationality of proofs/evidence is expected to be gasped by intelligent people making an argument. how then does one convince a dogmatic ignoramus as to the logic of an evidence?

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
Can you define the term God/god?

God: one who exhibits all authority (known and unknown), to whom ALL is subject, creator of all creations, all knowing and super-intelligent.
god: a local deity

nope

mazaje:
I understand your position very well with regards to creationism  and the biblical creation account but I just wanted us to limit the discussion to the Noah's flood and how terrestrial life began from a single point where the ark settled. You final statement about God declaring that "all he made was good" contains a lot of problems but I am not interested about that debate here on this thread. . . . .

ok . . .

Here I will have to disagree with you, I know you need to believe that evolution is wrong or invalid,(I am not saying it is true) But the definition of evolution has nothing to do with the pioneer concept of life, once life is here on the earth evolution attempts to provide explanation for the staggering biodiversity we see around us. The theory has never tried or attempted to talk about the pioneer concept of life that is why there are so many theistic evolutionist who believe that their various gods created life and used the evolutionary process to diversify life. I am not saying that evolution is true all I am saying is that it attempts to provide explanations for the biodiversity we see around us.

you should be familiar with my position on evolution by now. I am more interested in how the original life formed before it began diversifying. Evolution claims that this is from non-organic substances which is false. . . .but lets put this aside.

I am sorry to say but you are equivocating here. How is it out of place to guess what Noah did with the plants if the story is actually true? I will just assume for just for this thread that God created the plants again, just the way he created them in the beginning as recorded in genesis 1. The bible only talks about God telling Noah to gather together all terrestrial life and organisms and birds that fly in the air in pairs so that he will preserve them and later use them to repopulate the planet after the flood(Which is claimed to have destroyed all life on earth).

You do not deny the presence of these plants in the ship. . . . all I did was to ask what u though Noah did with them once he was out of the ark?
Like u rightly pointed out, .God's plan was to repopulate the earth. . but I disagree that God re-created plants. That we may not have the answers does not rule out the possibility of the obvious.

I am sorry to say but you are still equivocating. . . . We have already talked about plolystrate fossils and my understanding is that geologist have provided more than enough evidence for how some of them were formed and their explanations does not involve a global flood, it involves local flood and volcanoes etc.

I am afraid that the above assertions from ur "geologists" are FALSE. one does not require the knowledge of rocket science to decipher how elements as huge as rootless polystrate fossils could find themselves at the other end of the world. . .in an ageless form. u dont have to dismiss the facts to suit ur notions. the fact is that there are rootless polystrate fossils in australia who could only have been there through a global flood.

How exactly did the Mountain lion move from Turkey and finally settled in a habitable environment like North America? How did the Kangaroo, and Koala get to Australia. Besides, just how would all those animals know which direction to walk in to find a habitat in which they could thrive?
You have to provide evidence to show that this is possible.How will a polar bear survive in Turkey What about a kangaroo? How will such animals survive from turkey and move almost half the world across to their present location? How do penguins get to the south pole from Turkey? I did not really say that they relied on humans to transport them I was only stating the possibilities of how they could have gotten to their various locations.

u miss the whole point mazaje.

1. u make an assumption that the earth was as developed as this 45oo years ago. that explains why u would consider it impossible for a kangaroo to find its way to australia without having a private jet. Nope. . .the earth without the somplexities and ancient civilizations can best be described as an open field.
The natural instincts of adaptation and the urge to survive coupled with no restriction in mobility (since there was no life on the planet) is enough basis to explain the redistribution of these animals.

what do u think the state of the earth was after the flood and after the land had dried. the habitual nature of the earth would be the same all over the earth. . that all animals survived is a miracle science calls ADAPTATION.

We will always disagree on this, the rootless polystrate fossils very different geological explanations and geologist do not attribute it to any global flood at all. . . . .The flood water could NOT be a means of transportation because according to the story Noah and the animals did not get out of the ark until the water had completely receded and the ground was dry.

U can dispute the fact that the flood water could not have transported the inhabitants of the ark (for which u are right) but u cannot dispute the fact that it could have transported "other" substances like the polystrate fossils.

Is this not the same thing you accuse evolutionist of doing? Supposition and assumption, your statement above is nothing but special pleading IMO. You claim that science supports your beliefs but run and throw the god did it card when you have no credible explanation.

u would notice that I did not lay emphasis on it, I simply drew ur attention to it.

@ Kunle

how many Gods are there in heaven?

jagunlabi:
Does world religions serve as tools for psychologically preparing the entire humanity for impending tyranical rule?When i look at the profile of the various gods worshipped in this religions, these seems to be the case as these deities are very tyranical in their relationship or the way they interact with humanity.
What do you guys think?

I think u are confused.

tell me. . .why are u an atheist?. . .did ur father die too?

Jesoul. . .thou has done a brilliantly beautiful job. . . . I could not have added or said anything better.

. . . .I am a multi-trillionaire, so forget mazaje, Deepsight and toneyb's proposal and be my wife . . . .whaooo. U have done a great job on this thread.

I cant believe I am just seeing this thread . . .will be right back

so mohammed was suicidal. . .thats not unexpected, after receiving revelations from demons

I hope I get to ask the remainder of my 20 questions in the new year.

jagunlabi:
Quite a lot.I will name just a couple.
1)The christian god is manmade, the creator of the universe made man.
2)The christian god is a limited deity who exist only within the christian doctrines and scriptures. The creator of the universe transcends the doctrinal walls and boundaries of christianity and any other religions, and encompasses them all at the same time.

Even with those two, you can see that the differences are vast.But ponder on those two for starters.

Can anyone make sense out of this?

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
I don't think i am interested in pursuing this argument, it has been debated too often on NL and i don't think there is anymore to add. We both know that the bible makes it crystal clear that Jesus is the SON of God and NOT the GOD almighty. I am quite certain if it were otherwise, it would have been clearly stated and not left for zealots to be reading btw the lines and forcing their own hallucinations into it.

As usual, u make assertions and refuse to butress them.

Deep Sight:
Lol. Easy. Olumba Olumba Obu, Guru Maharaji, and many other quacks have claimed to be God, the alpha and omega. Are they God?

So Viaro, for you and Noetic, a mere assertion by that first century nomadic carpenter amounts to proof that he is the primordial and divine first cause and creator of all existence?

I'm sorry, but i have no words to describe how pedestrian that is. Psycotic, actually.

I do not fall into the bracket of ur analyses.

Kunle claims that there is a God almighty to whom Jesus is subject to, . .my question was/is: how can any other being exist outside the Alpha and Omega?

viaro:
Let's see:


However, as to this line in yours:. . it does not necessary follow that the same pattern be observed or posited between the beginning and the end. It does not follow in religion, for if we take Christianity as an example, would we say that the beginning must also be like the end? Hardly. For one, the basic testimony is that God created all things by simply speaking them into existence; but not so with how the universe ends, for it will come to an end by a fiery cataclysm. It just does not follow that the end must follow the same configuration as its origin.

The above does not represent my views.
I never implied that the begining has to correspond to the end. . . . but the subject of the begining must have answers to the end.

peharps the thread should talk about why anyone subscribes to any of the lingering hypothesis on the end of the universe.

viaro:
Thanks, noetic15. As I already hinted, there are several (or many?) hypothesis about how the Universe would end, which was implied in my 4th paragraph by: 'Among other hypotheses', but picked out just those two that are commonly debated in science currently. You've added one more with the twist of Alien Invasion conspiracy theory, which is not discussed as other scientific theories about cosmology and apocalypse.

I get ur point quite rightly.
What I attempted to illustrate by highlighting the "alien invasion" hypothesis is to draw a line, in stating clearly that many of these theories are IMO products of confusionists whose sole aim is to present the "truth" in a watered down version for the sole intent of deceiving.

It all eventually bugs down to "belief" . . . .as none of the hypothesis is provable scientifically.

Even so, it might be that your second point does not quite square with the whole subject:

No, I don't think it's about evolution, that argument is new to me entirely. Evolution of species is quite a different thing from origin of the Universe - they are not confused, especially because I don't quite know of anyone who assumes the Universe might have "kicked off" by inorganic evolution of species. What?!? On the contrary, cosmological theories are different in nature, where we look at such things like the Big Bang, Milne universe (or Milne model), the Ambiplasma of Plasma cosmology, Oscillating universe, etc., etc. Species come late in the cosmological timetable, and could not be used to argue the idea of how the Universe might have kicked off.

I jumped the gun. . . . . cos I actually meant to refer to the big bang, but chose to describe evolution (evolution IMO is an aftermath of the big bang thats why I used the word "Conducive environment" in my last post). cos I had certain people in mind 
I was expecting them to jump on me and start a chain of never-ending debates 

That aside,  . . . .
The big bang analogy which is the atheistic credence to the begining of life (if assumed to be true) does not complete the story. IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise.

My point is that for a theory (on the end of the universe)to hold water it must be able to scientifically explain the front and back end of the universe i.e how the universe began before it explains how it would end. but of course our scientific theories cannot explain this mysterious fact. . . .that leaves us to the BELIEF party pertinent with religion.

KunleOshob:
Alpha and Omega on earth and NOT in heaven. Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven remember I really don't understand why "christians" keep trying make scriptures say Jesus is God when Jesus himself in several scriptures made it clear that "the father who sent him is greater than he is"

1. Colosians 1:15 states that Jesus was God manifest in flesh. Mathew 9:18, 14:33, 15:25, 28:9 and 28: 17 show Jesus accepting worship . . , . . which is so simply cos He is God.
To limit the manifestation of God is to limit the ability of God. Jesus was both God in heaven and manifest on earth.

2. I cant find it written anywhere in the bible that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega of the earth and not heaven
Are by ur post submitting that while Jesus preceded the earth, He did not precede the heavens?

how will the universe end? . . . . . .
1. I think that our film makers and conspiracy theorists already have an answer to this poser. That IMO explains why we have movies and theories that postulate the invasion of the planet by Aliens. While there is NO tangible proof that aliens do exist or intend to invade the earth. . . . .we are made to believe that we are not alone and are subsequently targets of more advanced beings who also reside on this planet.

My submission is that the alien invasion theorist is an anti-Christ movement designed to down play the role of Christ and the final battle He returns here to fight after the rapture. I might be wrong. . .but who is right?

2. To arrive at a well thought out answer, perhaps we need to ask that how did the universe start in the first place. If the universe kicked off by virtue of an inorganic evolution of species and a random assemblage of a conducive environment for evolution. . . . . . then we can sit back and conclude that the universe would end by another sort of a random "de-evolution" at a time no man can tell. Not only is this "de-evolution" not scientific, its predecessor (evolution) was also more un-scientific.

But if the universe was a Godly creation as the bible tells it to be. . . . . then we can be rest assured that there would be a rapture and an "alien" invasion led by Jesus Christ, to put an end to all things.

KunleOshob:
I am not ignoring your post it is just that it lacks substance, the fact that Jesus called himself the Alpha and Omega does not make him God neither does it make him equal to God. you have to understand the context within which Jesus was making that statement. The earth is Jesus' inheritance from God so as far as the earth is concerned he is but in the kingdom of God he is his right hand man. You guys get easily confused about the true personallity of Jesus and a such describe him as God almighty were as the bible describes him as the one who radiate's God's glory and has God's character. The bible NEVER for once called him God almighty.

Hebrews 1:3:
3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven.

U conveniently dismiss all other verses that define Him as alpha and Omega. . . just to suit ur inexplicable dogma.
in what context was Jesus making the "Alpha and Omega" pronouncement?
Do u know that heaven and earth will pass away? so how can the earth be His inheritance? I still need u to explain how any being can be greater than the Alpha and Omega . . . .

KunleOshob:
@Viaro
I think pastor's comment i more applicable to your shallow understanding of the God/god concept.

u should be more concerned about ur own shallow understanding and dogma, . . First in the case of biblical love and now in the ontology of Jesus. . . . . . .

Beautymc:
Pls am interested to know the occultic beliefs of Oyedepo. With evidences so that what u don't know will not destroy you. Thanx

u had better dont get me started what EXACTLY would destroy me? oyedepo or who?

kudos for the well thought out thread. . . . its been a while since we had a real debate in this section. . .but ur OP was rather long.
In no particular order let me state the following,  . . . . . .

1. The diversification of species is NO evidence for evolution or any anti-creation concept. The bible was clear that God made beasts after their own kind. . .my biblical understanding is that this implies that species were made of various degrees with divergent attributes and God's final conclusion was that "all He has made was Good"

This diversification is no evidence for evolution simply because unless and until we are able to have an acceptable scientific explanation for the pioneer concept of life, from evolutions perspective, we CANNOT accept the claims of evolutionists. my point is that it is simply ridiculous to claim that the pioneer organisms that kick started evolution and subsequently life were non-organic (non-living) substances. This claim is both scientifically and intellectually unacceptable.
So if we cannot define the very origin of life and species by evolutionary concepts. . . .I think it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to accept any evolutionary claim on the diversification of life.

2. Bio-diversity fits perfectly into noah's account of the flood. . if u objectively look at the biblical claims,  . . . .
ur OP does not take into account the "spontaneous regeneration-ability" of plants,  . . which is also a scientific fact.
by biblical accounts we can assume that 7 kinds of every plant was preserved. . . . is it out of place to guess what noah did with them once he got out of the ark?

3. To understand the redistribution of these organisms/animals is to first comprehend the way by which they were gathered. how did they get into the ark? and why were they in the ark?
I will answer u this way. . . . . noah's events was a re-creation/preservation from damnation of life on earth by a super-intelligent creator. by this I can infer that since we have a potent evidence in the case of polystrate fossils which suggest that the flood took place. . .I can confidently assert the scientific plausibility of these preserved animals moving on (after the flood) to find adaptable areas. . .dont forget that by virture of scientific knowledge we can assert that adaptation is a necessity for organic survival. 

Submissively, I state that
A. the animals once off the ship of noah survived based on instincts and adaptable tendencies pertinent with life. They did NOT require a human being to transport them to their places of habitation like u thought. adaptation is a scientific fact.

B. the flood (water) on its own was a means of transportation. the present location of rootless polystrate fossils in Australia attests to this fact.

4. Since ur post assumes or rather submits that there was indeed a flood. . . . .would it be out of place to state that the super-intelligent being who caused the flood and made room for preservation also redistributed His creations. . . . but of course u dont consider this notion scientific, but u conveniently dismiss the scientific plausibility of creationism.

5. If by (3) above we can agree on the redistribution of plants then we can also analyse ur concerns of present day ecosystems.
An ecosystem is NOT a preceding component for the survival of an organism, because an organism is part of an ecosystem. This implies that an ecosystem is incomplete without an organism, since it is the environment along with the interdependent organism that forms an ecosystem.
In lieu of the above. . . let me state since the flood water and adaptation techniques were the primary modes of transportation, and since an ecosystem is only "form-able" with the existence of an interdependent organism. . it is safe to assert that ecosystems are a product of necessity, as such present ecosystems as mentioned by u are products of the redistribution of orgnisms and are as such NOT a big deal.

kunle has conviniently ignored my posers. . . . . . a simple "I Dont know" from him would have been polite

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=362489.msg5059494#msg5059494 date=1260118284]Em, replication, transcription and location all occur naturally. Its by these mechanisms cells multiply and proteins are formed.[/quote]tot u were talking about artificial replication as attempted on robotic beings.
but that not withstanding. . .how does ur assertion support the lack of need for a super intelligent being?

Kay 17:
dna carry the information or genes that is necessary for an organism to function and develop. therefore, to decipher it would take deeper in understanding evolution and even how to replicate it.

I still dont see the connection between DNA and evolution. if DNA's are identical then it will probably explain specie diversification as claimed by evolution. . .otherwise ur argument does not add up

you are right in the definition but, science with time and the direct opposition it has received from religion has been formed into an institution which is founded on truth against religion founded on belief.  Galileo can testify to that, and today it faces the same blind opposition from religion on matters like stem cell and evolution. at the end of the day, they seek to share the fruits yielded by science.

Your assertions are very FALSE. science is NOT a religion neither is it an alternative to religion. science and xtinaity are NOT mutually exclusive
There is nothing scientific that has been opposed by Christianity. . . . . . , for a start,evolution aint even science. Evolution is a FAITH concept, so also is atheism and other dogmatic claims that are ignorantly hidden under the banner of science.

True science is not at war with xtian beliefs.