₦airaland Forum

HallaDaTruth:
Space is Water. Not an empty void as you have been made to believe. That's where rain comes from. There are flood gates in the sky. There was a scientific experiment done by some people in the USA. They fired a rocket into the sky with a camera mounted on the tip, it kept hitting a hard surface in the sky. Lots of real life videos on YouTube. Also look up " project fish bowl". They fired nukes into the sky to crack the dome. Its impenetrable. Its the firmament that God built. Both the Bible and Real scientific proof agree but NASA keeps deflecting. The NASA logo is the Tongue of a serpent. Why ?. Look it up

Would you be kind to paste the link of such videos?
Thank you

goodheart02:
Why not see it this way that the idea of life forms else where is to show that God was a masterpiece maker. The idea of extra terrestrial life forms even make me wonder and marvel at his omninipotence and not as u have described it.

If that's how you see it, so be it

HallaDaTruth:
NASA IN LATIN MEANS DECEPTION. IF YOU ARE DREAMING OF LIVING IN ANOTHER PLANET IN FUTURE, YOU ARE IN FOR AN ULTRA RUDE SHOCK. NO ONE HAS EVER GONE OUT OF THIS PLANET BECAUSE ITS A CLOSED DOME. NO ONE CAN BREAK THE MOLTEN GLASS IN THE SKY. SO TO THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE ANYTHING COMING FROM NASA, I SAY DREAM ON

NASA IN LATIN MEANS DECEPTION
My Oga, I guess you are referring to the conspiracy theory that nasa means 'to deceive' in Hebrew. But Hebrew speaking folks have debunked that theory and they showed that the closest to the word nasa in Hebrew is 'nasha' which means 'to raise' or 'to run'.

NO ONE HAS EVER GONE OUT OF THIS PLANET BECAUSE ITS A CLOSED DOME
This is a big claim sha. How do you know that it is a closed dome. What is your proof?

I love the meme

goodheart02:
We're not alone. What God created wasn't a mere fable that's why it's called the universe. If only man can be humble and submit to his excellence, God will open our eyes to see more of other life forms he has kept far away from us.

Hmm, I wish it is as simple as you put it but it's not. Theologically, a Bible believing student has to agree that God made earth very special to inhabit life and made humans the pinnacle of his creation. Like I have posted already in this thread, the idea of life forms else where is desperate attempt to show that God was not needed for creation. That is, if there is life in other parts of the vast universe, then ABIOGENESIS is possible there and those life forms must have brought life to earth. Therefore, the Bible could be attacked and 'proved' to be in error that God is the creator.

One must be careful of scientific FICTION that are being hyped as FACTS

Golan007:
The search for extra terrestrial life is still quite primitive.

Most of the efforts are invested in radio telescopes and theories because the issue with intergalactic travel is yet to be overcome.

Of course, there's the possibility that we are alone but the probability of it is far less than the likelihood we aren't.

The sheer size of the universe, with its millions of stars and planets and moons cannot but make one to conclude that there must be life out there.


Just as those before us must have wondered about other races and tribes in places too distant to cover with the technology of the day, so is it about us who wonder and believe we could not possibly be alone.

The search for extra terrestrial life is still quite primitive.
Most of the efforts are invested in radio telescopes and theories because the issue with intergalactic travel is yet to be overcome.
Well, primitive might sound as an exaggeration to me since there's no real technology that we can compare it with to know that it is primitive or not.
And yes, they scan space to see if they can detect INTELLIGENT signal since they believed that aliens must have evolved for long and hence, should have better technology than we have on earth.
I don't think that the technology is the problem, but that the assumption that life must have evolved elsewhere and transferred to earth (against all odds of interstellar travels).


Of course, there's the possibility that we are alone but the probability of it is far less than the likelihood we aren't.
The sheer size of the universe, with its millions of stars and planets and moons cannot but make one to conclude that there must be life out there.
Again, you make a huge claim of probability here without sound argument for it. The argument you use in the next sentence is a type of non sequitor.
Also, it all start with a presupposition of how life arose. Most search for life in other places apart from earth is majorly to prove a naturalistic process for how life started. If it is possible that life form can be found elsewhere, then evolution has conquered its major obstacle. So, that is the underlying reason for folks who believe that we shouldn't be alone

Just as those before us must have wondered about other races and tribes in places too distant to cover with the technology of the day, so is it about us who wonder and believe we could not possibly be alone
This is a good idea, just that the conditions that makes life possible is almost the same all over the places within the earth. Same can not be said for any of the 'planets candidates' that are being discovered.
No other planet have been found to have ALL the conditions that makes earth a habitable place.
1. the size of earth
2. a stable star which must be just at the right distance
3. presence of magnetic field
4. a moon orbiting at the right distance
5. a huge 'protective' planet
6. presence of oxygen in the right amount
7. presence of other heavy elements
8. presence of atmosphere
9. presence of water
10. some physical constants just at the right value (fine tuning)
And others that I can't recall now.

I think with these conditions, it is safe to infer that the probability of having folks out there is far lesser than not having any

demmie1:
How about the third presupposition that God created a system that triggers life to come into being and set this system in different places to flourish with different laws working with the system? Pls don't be shallow.

And on what authority will the third presupposition rest?
I'm not shallow and I actually love it that you have God as a presupposition, but I limited myself to the first option because I can use the Bible as authority. If I have to exclude the Bible, then I should not use God (of the Bible)

Bossose:
Definitely, Earth cannot be the most suitable planet for human habitation. It will be stupid to think humans are actually alone in this universe. If proper research is carried out we will definitely come across a vast civilisation out there

It will be stupid to think humans are actually alone in this universe
Wow! What a big claim and committing the fallacy of question-begging epithet. You didn't prove that humans are not alone but claimed that it will be stupid to not agree with your claim

If proper research is carried out we will definitely come across a vast civilisation out there
Here again, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma. Your argument assumed that proper research can only lead to discovery of vast civilization outside the earth, ignoring the option that proper research may also lead to discovery of nothing out there. Have you heard of the SETI project? if that is not a definition of proper research, you could provide the standard for conducting proper research

michlins:
if you believe that out of billions of stars in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies that we are alone in it and that we're all that matters then you need serious help. Having said that, the place better than earth is yet to be visited by humans

It all starts with a presupposition.

If one believes the Bible and that God created the universe, yet made earth a dwelling place for life, then we are alone.

The other (reigning) hypothesis is to believe that God did not create life but life arose from chemicals who assembled themselves just by chance (against all odds), then one can believe that we are not alone and with same believe, chemicals on other 'earth like' planets must have assembled themselves to create (without any intelligence involved)

The question now is that how can you prove that one who has the first presupposition needs help as you claim?
How is the second believe better than the first believe?

Image123:
Lol, As funny as this is, it is also pathetic. This is why sometimes i'm without no choice than to reply them even if one. Especially because of other readers. Sometimes, i see people reply or like or share posts i made years ago. The implications are that people are reading. And most of them will also read the dumb logic and arguments of these wannabe atheists. If we do not give them an answer, i'm afraid people may think there are no answers or assume they are right.

It is well sha, may God continue to shield His own.

The bolded says it all.

Amen

Image123:
Get your facts right and make my task easier soon enough.

This is the main issue. Many informed folks can't put up with misinformation, which is why those misinformation or fallacy are addressed so that others may learn from it. On the other hand, I don't know how he thinks that anyone who address his misinformation seeks his attention. I only laughed when he mentioned that.
I don't know how he managed to equate quoting someone (to support or refute their claims) with seeking attention.
I can't make a screen shot to show some funny claims made by wannabe atheist in which one couldn't resist correcting such claims.

1. One said "science is not antithetical to theism but antithetical to Christianity" . Even When I made a syllogism to show that his conclusion is faulty; i.e. Christianity is Theistic. He accused me of twisting facts of making Christianity Theistic. I had to give up on him. Simple logical conclusion, he couldn't make
2. Another was drawing conclusion that light years shows that the earth is billions of years old
3. One was asking if I have heard of King James Bible (implying that the Brits wrote the Bible - no wonder, their religion)
4. One haphazardly copied and pasted some stuff to 'prove' that he came from a fish. The article was so incoherent and yet he claimed that "his brain has evolved... and is a civilized man ...not a nomad"
5. Another started talking about him attending geography class in secondary school because I showed that a rock whose age of formation is known gave millions of years when it was dated. He was even talking bla bla about Zuma rock
6. That reminds me, Most of them would rush to shout carbon dating when people question millions of years assigned to fossils
7. One made a claim that about 80% of (online?) Christians are dumb. When asked how he conducted his research to arrive at such figure, he claimed he doesn't have time to reply me
And so on. It get worse when you discuss with someone that does not even have knowledge of the subject, because any sound refutation would be rejected by him since he does not really know what he's talking about.

Image123:
Your offpoint point was that people who are well to do, or intelligent, or well informed do not believe in miracles. Then when approached with the reality which is painful for you, especially as even your biological parents and bosses believe, you fallaciously divert to belief not having an effect. Foolish atheists will not be easily left with folly especially if i follow them.

You are just right about your deduction. Many wannabe atheist usually use that lines of "only deluded people believe the Bible" and they tend to back it up by ridiculing miraculous events in the Bible, claiming that such events are impossible. Hence, cannot be true.
Their problem starts with their belief that miracles are not possible events. I call it a belief because they cannot conclusively prove that miracles are impossible events. They must be timeless (to go back in time to be able to know that ALL recorded miraculous events are not miracles or not true), they must be omnipresent (to be able to be AVAILABLE SILMULTANEOUSLY in ALL PLACES to observe all events at the same time) and they must be omniscient (to KNOW ALL THINGS).
Relying on present knowledge to make deduction is a form of belief (which is borrowed from a Christian world view) because know one knows if the characteristics of matter will change in the next instant. One has to believe that it should remain the way it has been observed to be in order to make prediction about it.
Philosophically, most atheists won't be able to stand on their worldview to make many meaningful claims; such as stating that Bible believers are deluded. How can they prove that the statement is true in the first place? They definitely have to believe it.
Again, they can only[b] believe that miracles don't exist[/b]. So it is a thing of belief and not about being informed

kingxsamz:
Lmao... See painment
Imagine believing a donkey talked, and you're coming here to argue. Hide your head in shame, you're embarrassing yourself.

I will be considering the bolded word. You seem to have issue with why he (and many Christian) believe everything in the Bible but let's see if you will be consistent

kingxsamz:
In this modern age and time... It's really something to be ashamed of o.
Imagine, with all the information that's available, you still believe that a man's donkey had a conversation with him. Nawa.
I feel sorry for you.
Still hide your head in shame though.

Okay, here you still show your disgust for his belief. Claiming he should even be ashamed.
Let's continue to see if you will be consistent with belief being important or not

kingxsamz:

Of course, why not?
Belief is a personal thing and has no business with reality. It's useless when it comes to reality. That is why you're working and not at home praying for money to fall on your roof. The point you just made proves that, your beliefs is as useless as it appears when it comes to reality.

And no, I'm not looking for work, I have work already. Thanks.

Now, his belief that you have issues with is now a personal thing.
A good question would be: How is it that you have issues with something that is personal to another person?
Again, you claimed that it is useless when it comes to reality. Now, how can you have issues with that which is useless in reality?

kingxsamz:
Lmao... still proving my point.
Have you ever discovered that your bosses, colleagues and teachers don't make use of their beliefs to excel in their various endeavours?. That's what I'm taking about. When it comes to reality, your beliefs are useless.

You still made the claim again.
This is why I feel that many are not in pursuit of truth but just show bigotry. You are having issues with a concept (which is common to everyone - theists or atheists) yet you still claim that the concept is useless in reality.
This is an inconsistency as you are concerned with something that you claim (believe?) is useless in reality. Also concerned with something that is personal to people.
I hope you see my message and not just make a red herring

ibuildstuff:
Going through all ur post, u just seems confused. Ion talk to confuse people.

You don't need to embarrass yourself by making false accusations, as an emotional defense

Enjoy your self deceit

ibuildstuff:
Shut up, didn't ask for ur opinion

SMH
Typical of them. Expose their ignorance, they flare up

musicwriter:
In history or even when talking about factual events in general, its not about believing. Your belief has no impact on history.

Julius Caesar and Aristotle existed and I provided you reference to books written by themselves in their time. So, its not about believing.

On the contrary, there's no HISTORICAL proof that Jesus, Moses, Noah and Adam ever existed. You'll never be able to provide proof that Jesus, Moses, Noah and Adam was a real person outside of your bible. These characters only exist as a story in the bible, just like fantasy in any other work of literature. These are not my words, rather Jewish scholars themselves said so.

Jewish Researchers: There's no evidence for Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, ETC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5RfScpEcZ8

This must be a mistake I believe. That there is no historical proof for Jesus? Then most attested historical figures such as Alexander the Great and others should be discarded

Image123:
This certifies your clownship. You don't judge a book by its cover. i have consistently referred you to the OP(original post or opening post), not to thread title. You can make anything as thread title, even your name. But what the OP talks about is the possible proof of Balaam's existence because some people 2800years ago write of him as existing. Something along that line. There was no attempt to prove or show that his donkey talked. Thanks be to God, the joker is starting to differentiate between plural and singular. Well let's not rejoice yet, but still in everything thank God for you.

Logic is hard to come by from many wannabe atheists most times. How the guy set up a strawman from the post is what I can't explain
Repeating old canards of flying spaghetti or sky daddy is becoming his anthem.
Folks like him take issue with miraculous events that were recorded in the scripture of which I have been asking them to prove that miracles never existed and don't exist. That is where they mostly end the discussion

SniperAssassin:
For example, DeusExMachina above me has already given a rundown on The Epic of Gilgamesh(Sumerian flood myth). It is far older than the Bible.(In fact the expert opinion is that the Bible's version was based on it. But yet do you believe the version of events that you read there?

I am more interested in this paragraph. (though you misrepresented his argument in my opinion. His claims (I believe) was that the Biblical narratives can be taken to be true since it time between events and recording is comparatively small but you seem to set up a strawman which both of you have been dealing with)
One thing should be known. Evidence don't interpret themselves, men interpret evidence according to a certain presupposition.
That the Sumerian version is older does not prove that the Bible plagiarized it. This can be deduced from the fact that the flood story is found in almost all parts of the world (China, Latin America, etc) that are geographically isolated.
I wouldn't want to impose my view but I would love that you read the work of someone who has shown that the view presented by the mainstream media cannot be relied upon

You may study her works also

Pelecius:
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Prov 18:17)

I would love that you check this other side of the debate (hopefully with a clear mind) by reading the work of Naomi Osanai here
https://creation.com/article/4075/
It was her master's thesis and it is titled "A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis"

DeusXmachina:
The flood myth is one of such examples.
This is the flood story according to the epic of Gilgamesh. The Babylonian/Mesopotamian story that is, the Sumerian one is slightly different, but the table is heavily fragmented.
This is based on the nearly completed tables found.

Ea leaks the secret plan
Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a secret story that begins in the old city of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates River.
The "great gods" Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea were sworn to secrecy about their plan to cause the flood.
But the god Ea (Sumerian god Enki) repeated the plan to Utnapishtim through a reed wall in a reed house.
Ea commanded Utnapishtim to demolish his house and build a boat, regardless of the cost, to keep living beings alive.
The boat must have equal dimensions with corresponding width and length and be covered over like Apsu boats.
Utnapishtim promised to do what Ea commanded.
He asked Ea what he should say to the city elders and the population.
Ea tells him to say that Enlil has rejected him and he can no longer reside in the city or set foot in Enlil's territory.
He should also say that he will go down to the Apsu "to live with my lord Ea".
Note: 'Apsu' can refer to a fresh water marsh near the temple of Ea/Enki at the city of Eridu.

Building and launching the boat
Carpenters, reed workers, and other people assembled one morning.
[missing lines]
Five days later, Utnapishtim laid out the exterior walls of the boat of 120 cubits.
The sides of the superstructure had equal lengths of 120 cubits. He also made a drawing of the interior structure.
The boat had six decks divided into seven and nine compartments.
Water plugs were driven into the middle part.
Punting poles and other necessary things were laid in.
Three times 3,600 units of raw bitumen were melted in a kiln and three times 3,600 units of oil were used in addition to two times 3,600 units of oil that were stored in the boat.
Oxen and sheep were slaughtered and ale, beer, oil, and wine were distributed to the workmen, like at a new year's festival.
When the boat was finished, the launch was very difficult. A runway of poles was used to slide the boat into the water.
Two-thirds of the boat was in the water.
Utnapishtim loaded his silver and gold into the boat.
He loaded "all the living beings that I had."
His relatives and craftsmen, and "all the beasts and animals of the field" boarded the boat.
The time arrived, as stated by the god Shamash, to seal the entry door.

The storm
Early in the morning at dawn a black cloud arose from the horizon.
The weather was frightful.
Utnapishtim boarded the boat and entrusted the boat and its contents to his boatmaster Puzurammurri who sealed the entry.
The thunder god Adad rumbled in the cloud and storm gods Shullar and Hanish went over mountains and land.
Erragal pulled out the mooring poles and the dikes overflowed.
The Annunnaki gods lit up the land with their lightning.
There was stunned shock at Adad's deeds which turned everything to blackness. The land was shattered like a pot.
All day long the south wind blew rapidly and the water overwhelmed the people like an attack.
No one could see his fellows. They could not recognize each other in the torrent.
The gods were frightened by the flood, and retreated up to the Anu heaven. They cowered like dogs lying by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth.
The Mistress of the gods wailed that the old days had turned to clay because "I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods, ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people who fill the sea like fish."
The other gods were weeping with her and sat sobbing with grief, their lips burning, parched with thirst.
The flood and wind lasted six days and six nights, flattening the land.
On the seventh day, the storm was pounding [intermittently?] like a woman in labor.

Calm after the storm
The sea calmed and the whirlwind and flood stopped. All day long there was quiet. All humans had turned to clay.
The terrain was as flat as a roof top. Utnapishtim opened a window and felt fresh air on his face.
He fell to his knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down his face. He looked for coastlines at the horizon and saw a region of land.
The boat lodged firmly on mount Nimush which held the boat for several days, allowing no swaying.
On the seventh day he released a dove that flew away, but came back to him. He released a swallow, but it also came back to him.
He released a raven which was able to eat and scratch, and did not circle back to the boat.
He then sent his livestock out in various directions.

The sacrifice

He sacrificed a sheep and offered incense at a mountainous ziggurat where he placed 14 sacrificial vessels and poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle into the fire.
The gods smelled the sweet odor of the sacrificial animal and gathered like flies over the sacrifice.
Then the great goddess arrived, lifted up her flies (beads), and said
"Ye gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli [amulet] around my neck, I shall be mindful of these days and never forget them! The gods may come to the sacrificial offering. But Enlil may not come, because he brought about the flood and annihilated my people without considering [the consequences]."
When Enlil arrived, he saw the boat and became furious at the Igigi gods. He said "Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!"
Ninurta spoke to Enlil saying "Who else but Ea could do such a thing? It is Ea who knew all of our plans."
Ea spoke to Enlil saying "It was you, the Sage of the Gods. How could you bring about a flood without consideration?"
Ea then accuses Enlil of sending a disproportionate punishment, and reminds him of the need for compassion.
Ea denies leaking the god's secret plan to Atrahasis (= Utnapishtim), admitting only sending him a dream and deflecting Enlil's attention to the flood hero.

The flood hero and his wife are granted
immortality and transported far away

Enlil then boards a boat and grasping Utnapishtim's hand, helps him and his wife aboard where they kneel. Standing between Utnapishtim and his wife, he touches their foreheads and blesses them. "Formerly Utnapishtim was a human being, but now he and his wife have become gods like us. Let Utnapishtim reside far away, at the mouth of the rivers."
Utnapishtim and his wife are transported and settled at the "mouth of the rivers".

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Prov 18:17)

I would love that you check this other side of the debate (hopefully with a clear mind) by reading the work of Naomi Osanai here
https://creation.com/article/4075/
It was her master's thesis and it is titled "A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis"

ibuildstuff:
This is not biblical evidence sef, this is just more proof to show the Bible was a combination of different pagan religion

I really don't know how the bolded follows. You just committed a non sequitor fallacy.

Fash20:
You're correct. the story of Noah was adapted from the epic of Gilgamesh.

This is a serious claim. I reasoned that you believed this because someone said it and it probably agrees with your assumption that the Bible cannot be true. Have you studied other works by others who showed that your claim is found to be the other way round? What is one of the thing that differentiate a counterfeit (story) from the original? With many criteria set out, the Gilgamesh story failed massively when it is compared to that of the Bible.
Again, what stops one from reasoning that both story descended from one original since that same event is found among folks that are geographically isolated in such a way that they cannot meet themselves to tell one another.
The moment one starts with a wrong presupposition, then it would be easy to go down a slippery slope

kingxsamz:
It's not rocket science.
Certain stories/names in the bible were adapted from somewhere or events that actually happened. Same way the Spider-Man movie is based in a real location, (New York) but we can't conclude that a man who shoots spider webs and flies in the air exists.
But I don't expect much from folks who won't read the article but jump into conclusions that a donkey once talked simply because an inscription which contained a name was found.
It's only a brain dead mofo that'll believe a snake and donkey talked simply because a 2000 year old book said so.
But you'll call these same archeologists liars when they show you 'alleged' bone fossils of Dinosaurs. Who is fooling who?

Your fallacy of false analogy baffles me. Let’s start with the first claim
Certain stories/names in the bible were adapted from somewhere or events that actually happened.
How can you prove this claim? Are we to believe you than the book (which many of it’s skeptical historical figures and locations are being confirmed) because you are omniscient?
Same way the Spider-Man movie is based in a real location, (New York) but we can't conclude that a man who shoots spider webs and flies in the air exists.
Your false analogy would have weight only if the movie claims to be a TRUE life event. Why would you make such fallacy just to show your hatred towards the bible?
But I don't expect much from folks who won't read the article but jump into conclusions that a donkey once talked simply because an inscription which contained a name was found.
Well, the bolded is true but it is a strawman. The aim of the article was not to show proof of a talking donkey (which is a metaphysical event) but to show proof that a Biblical Character (who one would have time believing that he exist) has been confirmed by archaeology.
It's only a brain dead mofo that'll believe a snake and donkey talked simply because a 2000 year old book said so.
You’ll have to prove that all events must be explicable by scientific (empirical) method and must be tested true by it to make this claim.
But you'll call these same archeologists liars when they show you 'alleged' bone fossils of Dinosaurs.
Another error! Archaeologists have nothing to do with Dino fossils. Learn to get your facts straight. Sadly, some folks tend to discard Dino fossils but the main bone of contention is the uniformitarian ages that are assigned to them and any scientific alternative is severely persecuted

SenecaTheYonger:
Yes. Science of today has been compromised. There’s too much politics involved. Imagine WHO playing politics with human lives. Trying to favor China against the US even though US annual funding to WHO is over $500mill while China is not even in top 10 donors.

This is just the bitter truth. Humanism and Materialism has taken over Science which leaves a moral vacuum (which Prof Richard Dawkins says: "it's tough, but we just have to face it".

sarjam05:
That reply wasn’t meant fir you but I’m real glad you’re scholastic enough to reply with constructive criticism.
Joesphus first you would be truthful about his historicity was never neutral. Maybe you need to understand the social conditions of literature. No man and I commit this fallacy boldly and eloquently. No man can write without bias!!! Even I writing this is biased. It’s like the problem of rhetoric where the sceptic knows he does not know but knows that he does not know. You Dey feel me.
Religious questions don’t have straight answers. Why do you believe Jesus existed? You would refer to Josephus. Now you see who is actually non sequitor. Jesus existed because Josephus said Jesus existed? That’s unwittingly dumb!!!
Once again please do you really know Josephus? Josephus had always being an active enemy of Nero. Never in his existence had he worked or loved him. He hated him for hating Jews how would he support his hate for Christians without being his friend. Now you see the problem in academia. The pot must call the kettle black in-order to be white. It’s a modus ponens operandi. Without it we would not have viewpoints and values. I am moral because my neighbor is immoral. Without him being immoral I am not moral. How would you know evil without good? Do you understand all this?
Josephus writing about Jesus is as much as other historians who wrote of him as a rabbi. Teacher. Magician. Yes. Many historians knew him as a magician. The Scandinavians knew him as a magician. Politician. Redeemer. War lord. The thief asked him to save himself before he can save the world. People in his time did not even support him. So if Jesus existed he is the messiah? If trump existed he is the antichrist as the Armageddon posited posit?
Bro this thing na just English. Only death can bring this to our knowledge of not it would always be mystery.
Science is different from humanities.
2 plus 2 is 4 is a scientific mathematical question. It is a straight answer. Does Jesus exist? Is this a humanities or social science or science question?
Once again. Not all Nigerians are gullible.

“That reply wasn’t meant fir you but I’m real glad you’re scholastic enough to reply with constructive criticism.”
Thank you for your kind words

“Joesphus first you would be truthful about his historicity was never neutral. Maybe you need to understand the social conditions of literature. No man and I commit this fallacy boldly and eloquently. No man can write without bias!!! Even I writing this is biased. It’s like the problem of rhetoric where the sceptic knows he does not know but knows that he does not know. You Dey feel me.”
My claim was not about his neutrality of his work in general, but neutrality in mentioning Christ, because he has nothing for or against Christianity. It can even be argued that he may be a hostile witness since he was working for the Romans (Vespasian) at the time of writing his works and the Roman government was hostile to Christianity at that point.
Again, the real point is that; he mentioning Christ and Christians is an independent source which corroborate the writings of the Bible, bearing witness that Christ was a historical figure

“Religious questions don’t have straight answers.”
Seem you are bent on making this claim and hence, committing fallacy of hasty generalization. I already explained how you could put it so as not to commit such fallacy.
“Why do you believe Jesus existed? You would refer to Josephus. Now you see who is actually non sequitor. Jesus existed because Josephus said Jesus existed? That’s unwittingly dumb!!!”
First of all, you seem not to understand the fallacy of non sequitur for writing this. You just committed another fallacy of question-begging epithet.
Again, you committed another fallacy called attacking straw-man. No one believed that Jesus existed just because Josephus said it only. That he mentioned it only add weight to the evidence provided by others. Luke himself has been categorized as a great historian because most of his mentions were found to be true. So if for Luke’s account alone, it is okay. But we have others such as JohnMark, John, and external witness of Tacitus who is seen as a great historian.
Now, using your logic that appealing to Josephus’ work would be “unwittingly dumb”; this would imply that one should not believe that Alexander the great existed because the first person who even wrote about him wrote after more than 600 years of his death before others started writing based on the first work. I’m believe that you wouldn’t agree that he didn’t exist. If yes, that should show that your logic is flawed again

“Once again please do you really know Josephus?”
I should be the one asking you this question
“Josephus had always being an active enemy of Nero. Never in his existence had he worked or loved him. He hated him for hating Jews how would he support his hate for Christians without being his friend. Now you see the problem in academia. The pot must call the kettle black in-order to be white. It’s a modus ponens operandi. Without it we would not have viewpoints and values. I am moral because my neighbor is immoral. Without him being immoral I am not moral. How would you know evil without good? Do you understand all this?”
Agreed! But he still worked with another Roman emperor (Vespasian. You may love to check it again so as not to make this mistake again). That alone nullifies every other thing that you wrote. Your premise is faulty, so your conclusion can not be logically sound

“Josephus writing about Jesus is as much as other historians who wrote of him as a rabbi. Teacher. Magician. Yes. Many historians knew him as a magician. The Scandinavians knew him as a magician. Politician. Redeemer. War lord. The thief asked him to save himself before he can save the world. People in his time did not even support him. So if Jesus existed he is the messiah? If trump existed he is the antichrist as the Armageddon posited posit?
Bro this thing na just English. Only death can bring this to our knowledge of not it would always be mystery.”
That is a red herring. It was not the point of argument in the first place. The argument is that ‘Josephus, Tacitus and others provided independent corroborating evidence that Christ was an historical figure on earth’

“Science is different from humanities.”
Sure. But again, that is not the main thrust of the argument.
“2 plus 2 is 4 is a scientific mathematical question. It is a straight answer.”
Well, 2 plus 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4 Mathematically except if the base is ASSUMED to be greater than 3, which shows that it could have more than one answer.
“Does Jesus exist? Is this a humanities or social science or science question?
Once again. Not all Nigerians are gullible”
All these are not really needed in this discussion anyway. It doesn’t prove that “not all Nigerians are gullible". Again, that someone rejects a statement even when all logically sound evidence points towards it is not proof that the person is not gullible
Not all Nigerians are gullible is a statement I agree with but the context in which you are using it is not really sound

Mathantics:
Stupid?

You read it but failed to understand it,

If it's stupid then you should be wondering why it's in your science textbooks in the first place.

Gorillas or apes didn't evolve to homosapiens, they only shared same ancestors with homosapiens.

Your correction is right but the bolded statement is flawed.
There are many things that are in science textbooks which have been found to be wrong.
1. Conventional current; though still used for analysis
2. Evolution of bones from cartilaginous ancestors as shown by this article
3. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form (Now, it has been found that they can actually be formed in few thousands of years); but still being taught
4. Heackel's fraudulent embryonic drawings which shows how fetus pass through the different evolution stages that human (their lot?) went through
and so on.
That something is found in a science textbook is not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that it can be relied upon.

Well, I know that some folks will still mention carbon dating and some have even started pouring out subtle insults to those who question the dates.
It is a shame to see the so called knowledgeable folks mentioning carbon dating or even adding carbon dating to any other form of dating methods where millions of years is involved.
The important points I saw in the article that I felt those ‘knowledgeable’ folks could discuss was not even mentioned, rather, they are out waiting for people to question the dates so that they can act as informed ones. Smh

The article said “Today, sharks' skeletons are made of cartilage - which is around half the density of bone. It was thought to be the original template before the heavier alternative.”
Then it went on to say; “Cartilage is known to have come first. Sharks were believed to have split from other animals prior to the arrival of bone.”
But then, “Minjinia completely contradicts this”. Why? Because; “… it had bony plates over its head and shoulders…”
And what is the result of this discovery?
“It suggests sharks had bones and then lost them - rather than keeping their initial cartilaginous state for over 400 million years.”
These are examples of discoveries that evolutionists could use to sit back and question the theory, but NO! the core theory must be protected and auxiliaries are revised and our NL ‘informed’ and ‘enlightened’ folks would not digest articles such as this but wait to call anyone who knowingly or ignorantly question the millions of years assigned to fossil funny names. Worst is that some will be mentioning carbon dating.

My question for the enlightened ones is:
The article said that; “…Conventional wisdom says a bony inner skeleton was a unique innovation of the lineage that split from the ancestor of sharks more than 400 million years ago”. This conventional wisdom was gotten also from the fact that “When we are developing as foetuses, humans and bony vertebrates have skeletons made of cartilage - like sharks.” Now, is it possible for organisms to evolve bones then drop to cartilage and back to bones? In simple statement, can evolution of bones occur twice without any purpose?. Knowing the complex biochemistry involved in the process

This is my problem with some scientists who always tactically blame humans (earth?) for anomalies. It reminds me of the 'humans are not important' propaganda during the lock down where many folks were talking about depopulation of humans to save 'mother earth'. These folks will resort to insult when you tell them to start with themselves and their loved ones.
Though I reject indiscriminate pollution, that is not a yardstick that humans should die for mother earth. People's worldview would definitely shape the way they reason

It is too early to suggest putting the blame on earth. This type of observation should enable the experts in that field to review their understanding of principles that work in space and still look to see if the prediction of earth's cause could be provable.
But something caught my attention in the article where it said that the earth's magnetic field will engulf the moon. I thought we were told that the earth's magnetic field is weakening

Then the article ended with the FAVORITE line; "...evolution of the moon"

I have seen a documentary of him at one time but I thought he was from SA. I think the name of the stuff where he was featured is something like show down of superhuman or so.
That is super incredible anyway

blueskies:
Pls fellow christians, where can i get detailed and accurate information on biblical history.

I'm interested in reading the whole biblical history and archaeology.
Theologians in the house pls?

There are many ministries that are dedicated to Christian Apologetics. There are those who deal with attacks from Islam, some deal with atheism generally, and some deal with evolution (it is important to note that there are many Christians, great Scientists, who agree with evolution but I find it not convincing because of sound scientific arguments from other great Bible believing Scientists which expose the fatal flaws in them)
I will just give a list of some of them (by their names). You can search them online to view their sites. One principle I employ is to read their 'Who we are', 'What we believe' statements to know where they stand concerning the Bible.
1. Answering Islam
2. Reasons to Believe
3. Creation Ministries International
4. Biologos
5. Christian think tank.
You could get links to other Christian sites that are specialized in a certain field of Christian Apologetics.
5 & 2 are rich in explaining Biblical history and presenting arguments for Christianity

Happy Surfing

Farki:
That's because it requires known scientific principles, paleontology and archeology to be discarded or reinterpreted to prove the Biblical narrative as fact
.

Again, you didn’t answer my question but attacked straw man as usual. My question again is that:
Does known laws of Physics and Chemistry or even Mathematics change because the Bible is involved (excluding miracles)?

Farki:
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1#ix

It starts with the conclusion that the Bible is true then tries to go out of it's way to convince others of the fact, any evidence to the contrary is discarded to creation "scientists".
.

For the book by National Academy of Science, it has been long refuted with sound Scientific facts (except those laws don’t work again because they are used by a Bible believing Scientist). I would love to send you where you can download the book but you definitely won’t read it just as I see that you don’t bother to read others that I sent to you but only look for refutations.

Farki:
Your work is not censored creation "scientists" simply ignore every scientific finding that is against their worldview in an attempt to prove something with shoddy evidence that relies on faith and pass it off as science. Asking me to entertain such silly stories is like a child demanding that I consider the story of Santa Claus and his magic sleigh to be real because Saint Nicholas was a real person.

Again, you didn’t address your fallacy of arguing from silence that I exposed but attacked straw man again. The same accusation that you make against Creation Scientist (any scientist who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible; including the supernatural creation of the universe is by default, a creation scientist. The list will include Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Ampere, Johan Keppler, John Hartnet, Wener Gitt, Stuart Baugress etc. so you should know what you are talking about when you try to ridicule the words ‘Creation Scientists) are exactly why I said there is censorship in the academia.

Farki:
Seriously this trash is your idea of a rebuttal, this is less an example of dinosaurs being disproven than a display of your ignorance on this topic.

First Carbon 14 has a half life of 6,000 years with a limit around 60,000 years and is not used to date dinosaur bones.

The samples were found to have been contaminated and obtained under dubious circumstances.

The rocks the samples were gotten from were shown to be 99 million years old.

There are additional errors with this "study" that are looked into with great detail in this link.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat/154606

The link you posted talked about Hugh Miller sending borrowing (contaminated?) samples of dino fossils and sending to a lab in University of ARIZONA. This is a good evidence that you did not read the article in the link I sent. The article presented evidence with proofs of correspondence of how different labs different from what you link mentioned carefully carbon dated dino BONES (not just fossils), including the Prof Mary Schweitzer’s discovery in which she received so many backlash, the persecution of Armittage and so on. You just proved my intuition that you didn’t even read the technical paper on the stability of the ark as I was surprised that you couldn’t fault anything both only resort to ad hominem. That was why I asked if laws of Physics and Chemistry changes the moment Bible is involved, which you never answered.
Basically, your link did not address the problems in the link I sent but another issue entirely. I felt you are a pursuer of facts, but you seem to just call what you can't defend 'trash'.
Also, the second statement there shows the bias I talked about. Evolution is so flexible that almost any anomaly fits. A dino bone can NEVER be carbon dated because it is BELIEVED that they exist beyond the limit of carbon dating as described in the geologic column

Farki:
Can Ken Ham's Ark float? Ships of similar length didn't last long at sea yet you want me to believe this roughly and hurriedly constructed ark was seaworthy.

Enough with the creationist rubbish already, stop reading articles by people who's main aim is to misrepresent facts and misinform you. They offer no facts only assumptions which, of course, have no basis in reality. Or you mean to tell me Noah trekked all the way to Australia to get Eucyleptus leaves for the 2 koalas that would be on the ship. If you start taking into account the fact that creationists think dinosaurs were on Noah's ark but didn't consider their nutritional requirements.

Again, instead of trying to see what they actually say on your questions, you discard them a priori. I didn’t respond to your perceived problem of feeding and others because I also saw those problems and searched to see if there is any convincing respons. Ken Ham didn’t build his replica to float. I talked about it before but you are bent on repeating misrepresentations that you have been reading. To ignore creationist articles, you still have to tell me if laws of nature that they use in explaining HISTORICAL SCIENCE changes. (Note: the term evolution and creation is just on origin, it has nothing to do with operational science. Both have different worldview with which they interpret data that has to do with origin. As I explained in the paragraph above, the big names of science are known scientist whose works are heavily recognized.)

Farki:
Do you really think creation "scientists" would consider any information or publish any finding or construct any study which doesn't "prove" biblical claims. Just like they keep finding Noah's ark in different locations every year and they are 100% certain every time.

Again, the ‘smart’ one dodged my question and replied with a red herring. (guess logic should be a compulsory course for all discipline in tertiary institutions). Until you answer my questions, then I can answer yours. I won’t fall for your fallacious trick

Farki:
You literally just described the bacteria developing new features which enable them to survive and adapt to a changing environment. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Your fallacy of equivocation won’t work, please. What evolution says in simple term is that ‘simplest’ organisms would gradually add structures over time, giving rise to organisms complex than their ancestors. So how does loosing a function add to the structure of bacteria? Has the resistance ability changed it from bacteria to another thing? So tell me how that has proved evolution. Natural selection or speciation is part of the creation/flood model and it is not an exclusive proof for evolution.

Farki:
Again you just described evolution, where specific traits are selected over time due to environmental pressures. What could have been a minor mutation in a dozen organisms was allowed to spread. The peppered moth only appeared within the last 200 years.

You are just funny. Selection of traits is a proof that those organisms have a large gene pool that could be selected for to adapt to their environment. It does not mean that the organism would develop new structures that would eventually make it complex than it was before, which is what evangelists of evolution have been pushing down our throats. I hope you know the problem of irreducible complexity (read it up before you look for a hand waving refutation), and the problem of information in DNA. As for the bolded, I only laugh at your ‘knowledge’. You seem to confuse time appearance and time observation of natural selection

Farki:
You keep bringing up strawman arguments in order to (badly) claim evolution is false while simultaneously defending a falsehood. Maybe it's because you are unable to truly grasp how long several million years is.
White people with blue eyes only appeared several thousand years ago.

You seem not to understand what strawman argument is because I constantly show when you make a logical fallacy and state what it is. You just made an accusation without showing where it is made. Again, claiming I am unable to grasp how long several million is another claim and arguing from silence. You don’t have any method for determining that and worse, how can you tell us that you grasp it.

Farki:
Concerning your paragraph about interpretation there is no "different interpretation" creationists are simply wrong and ignoring decades of research to keep their personal religious beliefs validated.

You are fond of making hand waving statements as you don’t know that Bible believing scientists are just competent and qualified in their fields as atheistic scientists. So claiming that they are wrong is an absurd claim. It seems you don’t understand the concept of paradigm in doing (HISTORICAL) science, else you won’t make such statement. Any evidence MUST be interpreted according to evolutionary paradigm, else it is not accepted. Check Prof Richard Lewontin’s quote concerning materialism.
Also, it would be good that you get informed on the history of modern science because it looks like you just swallow and repeat the same misinformation about Bible believing Scientists that you read from anti-God sites without checking the other side of the camp as the Bible also admonish,

Farki:
You won't get such glaring problems with the fossil records because it doesn't happen, the video I posted previously stated as much.

Of course, you may not read links that showed such anomalies in the geologic column that has forced the revision of dates of different phyla of animals if I post them but I will still post some of them anyway to show you that your hero Bill Nye was wrong and misinformation can be craftily made in a live debate where the opponent may not have the time to respond
Here, you have a bird in time of dinos. It got worse because ‘living fossils’ were found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5085686.stm

Here, you have a mammal in the time of reptiles

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6633459_Meng_J_Y_Hu_Y_Wang_X_Wang_and_C_Li_A_Mesozoic_gliding_mammal_from_northeastern_China_Nature

Others talk of foot print preceding the fossil itself with millions of years gap between them. Unfortunately, seem like the link has been taken down (it is actually embarrassing).
I only posted those two so as to avoid repetition of concept. These finds have forced revision for the time of 'evolution' of many class in the taxonomic rank (Everything must fit in to the evolutionary paradigm)

Eriokanmi:
Don't mind him. I'm sure he knows I'm more intelligent than him. I knew he'd not wish to make a mistske to harp on evolution nah . I'd have published a book for him here . But you know what? He'd still not accept my submission even though in his inner mind, I'm talking sense. I'm also a scientist by the way. I'm an agric scientist and I've done veritable researches on DNA in plants partly sponsoeed by UN. Evolution is a hoax and lies of the ages.

Weldon Sir
Of course, he would run. Smart people would follow the evidence where ever it leads but my NL atheists will ignore evidence and yet be calling people ignorant.
God be with you

Farki:
This isn't the "best of science" this is literally creation "science" which is a pseudoscience and is not taken seriously by any academic body.

The Leicester study determined that it would float in theory, did they determine that it would be a stable vessel for 100+ days of intense floods? No because attempts to recreate such a boat out of wooden materials have failed. This isn't even a taking into account the many inaccuracies of the story like how the animals behaved, fed, maintained their temperature and stopped themselves from killing each other.

You also thought you were smart and that I didn't catch the acknowledgement in the Korean "study".





You said evolution isn't happening, I gave hard evidence and you ignored it because it directly shows you were wrong. You are arguing with yourself on this one.

“This isn't the "best of science" this is literally creation "science" which is a pseudoscience…”
You are really just funny. Does known laws of Physics and Chemistry or even Mathematics change because the Bible is involved (excluding miracles)? If yes, how? If no, then why do you call it pseudoscience? (please, my argument is on use of the principles of scientific laws in case you want to attack strawman)

“The Leicester study determined that it would float in theory, did they determine that it would be a stable vessel for 100+ days of intense floods?”
That is arguing from silence. They didn’t say it won’t be stable in such flood, what they calculated was it’s buoyancy. So, it is still begging the question. Again, why do you expect a God hater to do research on Noah’s Ark? What do you think would happen if his results are to agree with the works done by Bible believing Scientist? Do you even know the censorship that happens in academia, that works which give credence to creation will NEVER be allowed to pass through secular peer reviewed journals, no matter the evidence? You can check this link
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
You said attempt to create such from wooden materials have failed but what did Ken Ham used though he built it more like a house.
“This isn't even a taking into account the many inaccuracies of the story like how the animals behaved, fed, maintained their temperature and stopped themselves from killing each other.”
You need to be informed on creationist literature so as not to be repeating stale and refuted claims.

How is me thinking I am smart related to you not seeing acknowledgment in a paper that I sent to you to READ. You are just funny.
Again, how does who sponsors change the laws of nature that was used in a research work? Of course, you are smart

I have talked about those so called evidence before and that those resistance is usually attributed to loss of function which make it difficult for the bacteria to bind to the antibiotic, hence becoming resistant. But no new feature is formed as evolutionist would want us to believe.
As for the peppered moths, though serious work has been done (in desperate attempt) to save the errors that genetics have shown on how the initial evolutionary story has issues. But this work eventually shows that there is a mutation which is responsible for the difference in coloration of the wings of the two moth types and not the initial story of industrial melanism. This only shows that it is more of a variation between the gene pool in peppered moths and has nothing to do with how a peppered moth should change to another insect or later, gradually become human over millions of years.
Fossil record was actually interpreted to fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationists also interpreted it to fit the creation/flood model. So, bias is into play here and not hard science. The same data, different interpretation which all fits the different paradigms. It even get worse for evolutionist whenever you get a fossil in a strata that is millions of years older than that of another organism that is supposed to be its ancestor. Funny right? You won’t see such reports

ospido:
An Atheist/Evolutionist will always be one.
They said "give us independent sources to prove the authenticity or otherwise of the Bible, Jesus" etc. You have also done such judiciously and he's still blabbing.
Josephus is a renowned historian who wrote about things that happened in the 1st century and beyond.
Or were they expecting an Olatubosun or Chinua Achebe or an Ekwensi to write first before they believe?
Look at the deluge of questions you're throwing at them.
Am yet to see any answer let alone it being reasonable.
There's a reason why God is revealing these things at this time of the end.
More will be revealed.

I laughed hard when I saw the bolded. Maybe that was what they expect truly. Lol
I want to believe that most of them don’t do proper checking and worse, some don’t have basic understanding of some of the things they come to debate. If they doubt Josephus’ works, then they should discard all ancient history
They don’t answer most questions that Christians ask them. If the eventually respond, they usually take a diversionary tactic and shift the goal post.
I agree with you
Have a nice day Sir