₦airaland Forum

nextstep:
The differences are:
- the science makes sense, if you understand the background, and follow the argument
- the scientists actually have a good idea of the theory, and tend to produce repeatable experiments
- the theory can be disproved/revised with better insights
- there is often physical proof (e.g. dinosaur bones, very old rocks, impact craters, radiation)
- unexplainable things are just said to be so. There's no "magical God" as the fallback answer

The differences are not as easy as you put it.
1. There is what is called a ruling paradigm which the scientific consensus work with. Anything which challenge this paradigm is attacked with all might. An example was the ptolemic geocentricity, abiogenesis, and now materialism
2. Not all theories have repeatable experiments for them. Example include dark matter in cosmology, principle of uniformitarianism, chemical evolution and so many other auxiliary theories in the General theory of evolution. Historical science is what they call it, just-so-stories. No repeatable experiment.
3. Yes but most time, it is the auxiliary theories that are being revised while the core theory is protected. Example, cosmic evolution is being revised time to time while General Theory of evolution is protected
4. Yes but physical proofs don’t speak for themselves. They are being interpreted according to the ruling paradigm. Example, detecting Carbon – 14 in millions of years old fossils MUST NEVER be interpreted as the fossil being ‘recent’, rather, contaminations must be invoked to explain why the proof goes against the trumpeted long age.
5. This is not entirely factual and not purely scientific. For example, the origin of the universe is unexplainable, yet the scientific consensus says it was formed from NOTHING. Yes, nothing. Again, the origin of life is a nightmare, but in order to exclude a NON-MATERIAL cause, the scientific consensus resorted to the ‘magical’ abiogenesis.
Sir, it is not as simple as the media would want us to have it. Agreeing to some of those facts takes a huge leap of FAITH.

RemoveKebab:
With the comments am seeing above I can say that we have a lot of illiterates on NL, no wonder it full of bizarre comments at times.

There is something called carbon dating,Ok

And here come the 'messiah' again with carbon dating argument for millions of years fossil. Please, retract your bolded comment. It shouldn't come from you who calls others illiterates

marsman:
Just the part i was trying to bring out, your hypocritical side. As a true atheist you shouldn't even care about , what my God can do and not do, seems to me like you are just trying to gain attention.
Your argument is guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur. The fallacy is committed when a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement. If amputees do not grow back limbs when we pray for them, does it follow God does not exist? Of course not. His existence is independent of what actions He would or would not take.

But why limit myself to amputee miracles? Any miracle will do. A million dollars in my bank account today. World peace starting tomorrow. And if these miracles don’t occur, then God doesn’t exist. Well, I think you can see the irrationality of such claims. God’s failure to perform a miracle at my request says nothing about His existence.
If God performed miracles based on human wants and demand, the world should be a scrap yard by now, you see this what you don't get, he doesn't just do things because you or i want it, he does in such a way that the world balance wouldn't collapse. Naturally humans are selfish, and according to the Bible well, I don’t think God is really interested in becoming a magic genie. He’s interested in something much deeper and more profound. He’s interested in the kind of human being you become.
It takes a matured man to understand what i just said

The guy is just funny and worse is that he is a master of diversionary tactic, committing red herring and most time, attacking strawman. I stopped taking him serious the day I found out that he does not even know the criteria that is used to grade historical materials of antiquity. He talked about the stories of Alexander the great as being factual but reject the Bible when the latter passed the criteria much more than the former.
Also, he joins other self-proclaimed ‘educated’ folks in claiming that fossils which are assigned some millions of years are carbon dated and so many errors that I’ve seen him make. Now, he made another one with a statement which implies that the Bible is written by the whites. This actually got me laughing and when he was exposed, he never talked about it again. Enough to show that he is not after knowledge.

What I found out on NL is that most wannabe atheists don’t even know the philosophy behind atheism. Worst is that some would not want to call themselves atheist, yet they make mockery of different religion and making comments that implies they deny existence of miracles. Just talk about confusion. Lol. One was so funny that he was accusing me of equating Christianity with Theism. I couldn’t stop laughing and after making a syllogism for him to show how funny his statement was, he did the usual thing – ad hominem.

At the bolded, that is something they also fail to understand. Psalm 115: 3 said He sits in heaven and doeth what pleases him. If he is to do what pleases man, then the world will just self-destruct as you rightly pointed out. Imagine an atheist who doesn’t have the concept of good or evil in his philosophy will now be complaining that there is evil in the world, and concluding that there is no God. I pray that their eyes of understanding be opened.

Primesky:
OPEN your eyes and mind. If it fits your understanding then it's no longer a miracle, and just because you didn't see it doesn't make it false.

There's something called 'supernatural' it's beyond natural and as such cannot be explained by physics, chemistry, mathematics and logic.

God is limitless, no argument against that.

God bless you. I have been challenging some of them who calls miraculous acts 'illogical' to tell me if the deny existence of miracles and prove its non existence. I even gave a list of some ludicrous 'scientific facts' and challenged them to show me how those so called facts can be explained using the laws of physics and chemistry. Till date, non of them have made any attempt.
Rom 1: 20 -21 comes to mind when I see their funny posts

Wow!
This is an eye opener. There really should be price control. I also believe that it will help reduce the rate at which inflation grows.
It's a common thing with our people that they look for every opportunity to increase prices of commodity. You can imagine a NUNU seller telling her customer that the volume of nunu has to reduce because dollar $ has increase. Lol. And the man replied that what is the business of a Fulani nunu seller with dollar? It was a funny scene.

ParpahSeventy:
Then we are back to my point, the first guy I quoted said something like 'African minds and ignorance, they are so backward that they believe everything the whites and Arabs have taught them about religion and anything that doesn't conform to that to them is false, ' (although this is not verbatim but you can check it up, the first page, first comment by isthatso,) he later came up with another post "with all the numerous materials on the internet, they can't educate themselves", from his comments here and your comments it means you agree that those things that makes you so "logical" and "intellectual" that makes you think religious folks are fools were things you read from "white men" not your own research and you accept them hook, line and sinker, you call them facts, they may be facts but you call them facts because you BELIEVED them to be facts not because you can prove them as a result of your research,
so my point to you all supposed scientist and civilised men is that, you read and believe, the religious folks read and believe, all written by the "white men", so what makes you more enlightened than them?
They are ignorant because the believed what the white men brought to them, and you are enlightened because you also believes what the white men brought all on different subject matters, what makes you superior to them, this where your folly lies,
that is the message I have been trying to pass, am neither against science nor religion, I can't be against what I have spent tons of naira to study for clearly over a decade at different levels, so that's my point,
READ AND UNDERSTAND.

This has been the main problem. You've been explaining a simple statement since but the 'educated' ones seem not to understand. I don't know how they fail to understand the statement that we all READ and BELIEVE what we read in order to AGREE with it. We've been indoctrinated on WHAT TO THINK than knowing HOW TO THINK in our schools. This is clear from the fact you showed that we don't make or even have knowledge on how to make those super scientific researches (apart from the simple ones done in schools, repeating previous experiments) to ascertain the facts that we read about. We only BELIEVE that what they say is true because we've set our minds to agree that whatever is called a fact by the scientific consensus must be TRUE even when history has shown that some of such 'facts' are being overturned by another with time.

I hope they learn as I just learned something from your words.

I hail thy wisdom, ParpahSeventy

isthatso:
Well One thing I think we can both agree upon is
As I said earlier and you seem to have just agreed, the Bible is not based on proven facts, it is ambiguous and open to numerous interpretations based on your defined agenda. If you are looking for a reason to kill a transgressor you will find it in the bible, if you are looking for a reason to forgive a transgressor you will also find it. This is hardly the reference book for a logical mind but rather sheep or those who wish to manipulate sheep. Like i say you don't need religion to know how to live a moral righteous life. Common sense and life experiences will soon enough teach you simple rules like nothing good comes easy, stealing has its consequences, lying has consequences, sleeping with another mans wife etc.

I guess that I replied in haste, forgetting the second paragraph of your initial response. What I agreed with was what was written in the first paragraph and on the third paragraph which talked about religion can be open to manipulation. And as a Christian, I know that my relationship is categorized under religion but I am not a religious person. I have a relationship with God (Father – son relationship), and a plain reading of the scriptures teaches that.

Now to the second paragraph of the previous response. CHRISTIANITY is firmly hinged on the Bible and it is as a result of a plain EXEGESIS of the Bible (Sola Scriptura) that modern Science was born. Any informed Historian of modern science knows that the founding fathers of modern science worked out their experimental and empirical science because their FAITH motivated them to do so. My question now should be; if the Bible is not factual, how did it enable them to believe that the universe can be studied; thereby birthing modern science?
Again, the fact that the texts of the Bible is open to interpretations of man does not rule out its authenticity. The reason is that it is not just a book of history, it contains different genres and figures of speech. And the fact that man is selfish, deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9), he would love to manipulate and force his selfish mind on a certain text for his wicked ambition. It is important to note that this is not just a problem of the Bible, but it also cut across Historical Science where data that is available to all is being INTERPRETED according to a certain PARADIGM (I want to believe you know what I meant by that, if not, you can check it up).
So I didn’t agree with you that the Bible is not based on proven FACTS, (the statement alone is ambiguous and open to various interpretation. Lol) because there are historical and prophetical statements of the Bible that have been proven true and some are yet to be discovered while others are heavily contended, miraculous events especially. This shows that it is not ALL of the text that are ambiguous.
Talking of misinterpretation of words is exactly what you did with my statements that were bolded by you. What I meant by those words is that the various passages (you talked of about 15) that are quoted by either Flat Earthers or bibliosceptics can be subdivided into those types of fallacies. The first one should tell you that I was talking about logical fallacies and not ambiguity of the Bible
Now, a good EXEGESIS (Sola Scriptura) of the Bible is found to be the best method of expounding the scripture rather than interpreting based on one’s idea. For example, you talked about reason to kill or forgive a transgressor. It is a well-known fact that the scripture is usually divided into the LAW, PROPHETS and the text of the NEW COVENANT. And the inspired New Testament writers taught extensively that the coming of Jesus fulfilled the (over 628) codes where God showed man that he is helpless in the face of sin without His grace of redemption, hence believers are NO LONGER bound to follow the (over 600) codes written during but now summarized into LOVING GOD (which directly translates to obedience to God, and summarizes the first 4 of the ten commandments; expounded by the New Testament writers) and LOVING MAN (which summarizes the last 6 of the ten commandments and as explained by the writings of the prophet and the New Testament writers.
You said “…you don’t need religion to know how to live a moral righteous life”. There is a philosophical problem with that. There is an African proverb which says; “where there is no law, there is no transgression”. This is very true because there must be a ‘rule’ which defines what is righteous and what is not. Common sense does not give rule, else how do we know who have it or not? What is sensible to me may not be sensible to you. In a free world, lying should not have a consequence if it is not considered wrong but who made the rule that it is wrong to lie? All these rules that defines righteousness are borrowed from one form of religion or the other (though I will speak for the Bible as that has been the crust of my argument). It’s good that you are not an atheist, hence you have a reason to be righteous – to do what is good but this good has to be defined by some sort of standard. Who sets the standard of what is good or bad? Because as I said earlier, common sense alone can’t set rules for what is good or bad. Atheists too should have common sense but their philosophy doesn’t have anything which defines what is good or evil. This is why a theist (Christian especially) cannot be divorced from his sacred writing (Bible in this case).

On a final note, it is true that the Bible is being used by selfish and wicked people to propagate their ambition, this does not make the Bible illogical. It is a trait in humans that even scientific data are interpreted differently to suit a certain worldview which has sparked controversy since ages. The scripture cannot be broken, so the best EXEGESIS is Sola Scriptura.

SegFault:
I never saw anything like flat earth anywhere in the bible, but people would obviously have believed in it before Magellan sailed round the Earth. Though there were already proofs like the eclipse, the horizon and all.

Well, it's nice to hear that from you.
Anyway, a spherical earth has been taught by Greek Scientists and some even accurately calculated its RADIUS long before the time of Christ, not to talk of circumnavigation. Christian Scientist, Johan Keppler also accurately describe its eliptical orbit and that of other planets and so many works on a spherical earth that was done in Cathedrals even before the circumnavigation.
It's just some deceitful folks that are making it look like a flat earth is known in religious circle when there are atheists that are in the Flat Earth movements currently

Macsjebs:
Boss see what I stumbled on tonight: https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/26141-the-10-worst-old-testament-verses, pls accept my little token

I smile in Swahili. Now I'm getting why some God haters seem to reason the way they do.
Imposing one's interpretation on the Bible is what is called Eisegesis. If you can't do a proper exegesis of the Bible, why should I take you serious? If one can't differentiate an express command from a prophetic message, to a metaphor or allegory, to people's OWN opinion which was recorded, how is that person smart? Again, must you lie just to prove your point?

I just know that most folks will search for stuff against the Bible and then come to post it without even checking for rebuttal. That's why it is difficult having a real intellectual discussion with them as they have sealed their mind already.

Lastly, if you are an atheist, on what ground do you stand to call something good or evil?. I am interested in what you have to say about this question.

A word is enough for the wise

Sanchez01:
The one strength they think they have is their nothing-like-God stance. Take the question of science to them and everywhere will bust.

If I was an atheist, God forbid, I sure as hell would do better than the pseudo-intelligence they exhibit.

Some 7 years ago, their oga, during an argument in the religious section claimed he was an atheist and that he doesn't believe in anything. Another atheist ended up teaching him that atheists believe in something even though the God-ship doesn't sail with them. You needed to see the confusion and self discovery on that day.

When it started looking like oga was losing, he resorted to banning non-atheists on that thread. I can't forget, I was banned for breaking rule 2. The difference between the upcoming among them and their bosses is a hairline difference. You'd be amazed if you jam them in an argument.

You are right. I enjoyed how one of them was schooled that atheist also have their belief, by someone on a religious thread. I even had to show the confusion in an article: “What is Atheism?” on American Atheist website where they claim that they don’t have any belief but without reading too much, you’ll find the article talking about “what they believe”. Confusion on confusion.

I believe they just swallow whole whatever is dished out by sceptics without checking for rebuttals, yet they accuse religious folks of the same thing. Just pathetic.

Like you said, their weak point is on real science. You ask a simple question and they’ll shift the goal post.
Banning non atheists? Hahahah. That should show how deceitful some of them can be. Sure! I have seen how some of them reason. Refute them and they may even insult you instead of learning and having a wonderful intellectual discussion.
What amazes me most is how some of them are ignorant of the fact that modern science has its roots in religion, Christianity especially. Yet you see them claiming that religion is in the way of science and that they, the atheists are the intellectuals and logical ones. Like I do say; they should look at the percentage of religious people (say Christians) that are Nobel Laureates in Science – over 70%. So much that (generally speaking) religious folks are the “…the dumbest and illogical…” people, as most of them put it.

destinable:
Applications of half-life is not limited to Carbon-14 for dating techniques. There are other stable isotopes that are utilized for half-life.
No, the question about fossil fuels is enough reason for you to know that organisms have roamed this earth millions of years ago because it takes millions of years for the formation of petroleum (I hope you know how petroleum forms). There are so many evidences today that prove the existence of organisms millions of years ago, even without radiometric dating.

Dating techniques are not entirely foolproof, hence the margin of error estimation, but to fault it entirely without sufficient research data is hypocritical because we believe far more illogical things in our various religions.

Of course, I know it is not limited to Carbon-14 but that was not the initial discussion as my argument is that fossils which are allegedly millions of years old are not carbon dated because they don’t expect to see any trace of Carbon 14 in that age. Also, it is to show that I have an idea of half-life which is used in most dating techniques.

Secondly, fossil fuel is not a fool proof that organisms roam millions of years ago. It is a known fact in physical science that INTENSITY can be traded for TIME. The millions of years ago works only on the assumption that uniformitarianism but research works have shown without doubt that this is not the case. A research by the Common Wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia) where they mimicked the way petroleum is formed naturally in a laboratory and their findings published in the Journal, Nature showed that rocks from sedimentary basins generated petroleum in just 6 years when subjected to similar geochemical conditions and reactions found in naturally subsiding sedimentary basin. Also, another research which was published showed that oil is formed rapidly under ocean in few thousands of years. This was found under the waters of the Gulf of California in an area called the Guaymas Basin.

Now, you also said that “there are many evidences which prove the existence of organism millions of years ago…”. But all these rely on an assumption that leads to millions of years ago which was why I mentioned axioms and paradigms earlier.
Accusing me of faulting it without sufficient research is arguing from silence. I don’t have to do the research, but I have access to read those researches which have shown that radiometric dating is not reliable. First is the assumptions on which they are built, second is that same specimen have been shown to give conflicting dates. Thirdly is that it has been found to give millions of years for rocks that their age of formation was known (formed like in 1949, Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand and others). Fourthly, other physical and geochemical activities falsify millions of ages for some of those rock. example is radiohalo. So, I don’t know who is being hypocritical here? Like I said, it is a matter of axioms and paradigms and not a matter of research. The consensus believe that the universe is very old. It makes sense to them as it goes against the literal teaching of religious text (Bible especially). You must have seen my mention of Prof Richard Lewontin’s quote in this thread. And I want to implore you that miracles are not illogical things (if that was what you are referring to) because it is difficult to prove its non existence.

Thank you sir

isthatso:
First of all I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, I do. I believe in God because my scientific mind is unable to explain the origins of man, so God is a way of accounting for the origin of man, the story of God and what form God remains a mystery. But there is a difference in believing in God and religion. Even science and logical deduction will point to the existence of a higher phenomenon which we call God. Religion on the other hand is man made for the manipulation and control of the behavior of man because no one can yet explain who or what is God.

The problem with religion is that everything is “according to the Bible”, “according to the Quoran” etc. who says the accounts in these books are factual? what if the accounts contained there are wrong? Religious followers base their whole existence on things for which there are no proof, no attempt to verify or ascertain the validity of the contents. The other problem with religion is that it is vastly dependent of the interpretation of man, usually the leaders. If for instance the Bible was the definitive story of man, Why do we have so many different churches with different interpretations? That alone should tell you something.

At least with science, you take a hypothesis and you try to prove it but it is never accepted until PROVEN. Science is based on fact, religion by definition is not. That is why the Bible and quoran are open to manipulation according to the agenda of the protagonists. You will always find a quote in the Bible or Quoran to suit whatever agenda you want because again it is not based on demonstrable fact. Religion is based on people accepting what cannot be proven so by definition it is open to manipulation. Science comes up with theories/hypothesis that can be explored, discredited or proven.

As for flat earth,

Revelation 7:1

7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any

Isiah 11:12

He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

You are right in many things that you pointed out about religion and I won’t bother about that because that was not my argument
Your claim that the bible taught about the church teaching a flat earth was what caught my attention initially and which was why I assumed you are an atheist.

Now, the passage you quoted did not say that the earth is flat. Four corners does not imply four vertices. It is your (their?) assumption already that the bible teaches a flat earth. Other passages that you could find were categorized under (a) non sequiturs (b) ambiguous verses and (c) verses which involve misreading non modern English terminology in old versions. Your four corners fall in the second category. It does not say a flat earth nor a globe earth but prophetically describing the earth in its entirety just as four compass points North, South, East and West.
As you advised, Google is your friend. Please use it

SegFault:
Rocks whose ages are known? Do you know how many years it takes for rocks to form. I did geography back in secondary school so this one I no fit gree, for example take zuma rock, that rock could take thousands of years to form.

What are you saying now? If you don’t have idea of what I meant, you should have just held your peace. Does it have anything to do with your secondary school geography? What are you saying by Zuma rock COULD take thousands of years to form?

I was talking of cooling of a lava flow which is when it is assumed (believed?) that you should only find parent radioactive atoms and which should decay to its daughter atoms at a rate. This rate is now used to measure the age of the rock from when it was formed. Now, there are lava flows whose formations are known (just few years, an example is the 1949 lava flow of Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand) and radio metric dating gave millions of years for them.

destinable:
Really! You're asking if there's any trace of carbon in fossils? Do you even know what either/both carbon or fossil is at all? Do you know the process an organism has to go through to be called a fossil? If there's no trace of carbon in fossils, then which trapped carbon is released during the burning of fossil fuel? If you have a problem with dating techniques, how about you first try to understand half-life and it's applications.

Before you start throwing low blows, just know that geological works/research is what I do for a living and I only quoted you because of the misinformation on your entire submission.

It's cool that you are a geologist. If I may ask, do you expect to find any track of carbon (same isotope 14) in an organic material after 300,000 years?
The question you raised about releasing carbon in burning "fossil" fuels should be enough to challenge the millions of years attached to those things.
Again, carbon 14 have been found in some diamond which are believed to be formed billions of years. If it has a short half life, how do we expect it to be found in diamond that are billions of years?
The assumptions behind dating technique is another problem which has been raised but nothing must challenge the principle of uniformitarianism. Talk about axioms and paradigms

SegFault:
It's not absolute of course it's an approximate, it could be millions shorter or longer but it gives you an idea of how far back it was.

Well, there are works that gives few thousands using same assumptions that all radiometric dating rely upon. Worse is there are rocks whose ages are known as when they were formed was recorded, yet radiometric dating gave millions of years again. This is why it is futile to call those who make mockery of it illiterates. The approximation is greatly exaggerated.
Finally, fossils are assigned dates and nor carbon dated especially if it has completely meneralized

SegFault:
Yah. But the church believed that after the Earth comes heaven. I hope you know.

"Yah"?
Are you agreeing that the church never taught a flat earth or what?

"...After the earth comew the heaven"
You need to understand what the church taught about heavens first (notice the plural - heavens).
Secondly, what does the Bible say and how the church interpret it? Most times, the church may err when it forces the scientific consensus of a certain period on the bible as seen in the ptolemic geocentricity era as against heliocentricity. This is why it is very dangerous to dogmatically swallow info that are still being challenged as FACTS.

What baffles me most is how 'educated' atheist think that millions of year fossils are carbon dated. It is really a slap on their face to make such erroneous claim.
Of course, I won't quote anyone who tends to make mockery of millions of age because I don't agree with it as various reports have shown that it has made mockery of itself. It is not just about swallowing anything that lends support to evolutionary theory, it's about following the evidence wherever it leads. But this is not the case as a quote from a top leading evolutionary Professor Richard Lawton says: "...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

He went on to say: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Please, understand the quote well and I'll advice that you know that philosophy behind atheism before attacking religion. Worst is that most of the objections raised have been long answered and when atheist (especially in Nl) are shown, they make redherring, shifting the goal posts.

Millions of years is not absolute truth and please don't embarrass yourselves by talking about carbon dating when millions of years is mentioned.

Sanchez01:
Young man, stop shifting the goal post. How old is the earth? Let's start from there. You're free to cull contents at this point.

You claimed carbon dating was more accurate than others but you are shifting the post after I wasted my time to explain why it is not the most accurate?

That's the traits that I have seen in wannabe atheists here on NL. You refute a claim they make (in the name of "we are the informed ones because we don't believe in God" and instead of addressing your arguments, they pick up another thing or worse, attack strawman.

isthatso:
My friend there is fact and there is opinion/faith/belief. Fact is not subjective. The Bible says the world is flat, science has proved otherwise. This is not about what one is told, fact is demonstrable. Faith by definition is asking you to believe what hasnt been proven. What you accept by faith may or may not be true what is fact is scientifically proven, demonstrable and evidenced or else it is not fact.

When I see posts like this, I know that wannabe atheists will be around to show their ignorance of the Bible.
"The Bible says the earth is flat"? Com'on! get your facts straight. Right from time, the church (teaching from the bible) never thought of a flat earth. Read up respected church history on the subject.

Your last statement should be applied to atheists amd materialists who 'have faith' that nothing is out there except matter and energy eve with so many contrary observations (evidence) and that everything MUST be explained using the laws of nature

Sanchez01:
It is not a dvck measuring contest. And I took you on from the angle of referring to those who don't buy the 250 million charade as Illiterates.

There is:

1. Samarium–neodymium dating method.
2. Potassium–argon dating method.
3. Rubidium–strontium dating method.
4. Uranium–thorium dating method.
5. And there is the lead (something...)

The Uranium–thorium dating method is more accurate for dating fossils of over 500,000 as against the carbon dating method you sold and branded people Illiterates over. Although the latter is considered more accurate generally, the Uranium-thorium is still much more accurate.

I believe approximation/estimation pattern is at play here. And if it is, it still makes a mockery of science in the end as to the true age of the earth. You can't tell me a fossil of 250 million years ago was recently discovered when science only discovered that sperm cells don't in fact swim but wriggle.

That science is very notorious for gross exaggeration is an open secret. Science interests me a whole lot and it has led me on a heuristic method of learning for about a decade but don't come and sell unleavened bread in the name of enlightenment.

I laugh WUHANically when I see folks shout "Carbon dating!" for alleged millions of year old fossils. Worst, they claim to be the educated ones. It's just so pathetic and the quickly attack the Bible because some religious folks make mockery of the same age.

samsard:
Illiterates think it's exaggerated. It's measured using carbon dating technique

Educated man, what's the half life of carbon 14 that's normally used for carbon dating? Is carbon dating used for millions of years fossil? I expect your educated mind to know the main procedure used for assigning age to millions of years fossil.

Fawklicant:
It's called radiocarbon dating and it is used to determine the age of fossils to a great accuracy. There's nothing that says that there hasn't been other worlds before ours. Archeological findings have proven that.

Radiocarbon dating on fossil? Do you expect to find any trace of carbon in a fossil? For crying out loud, these ages has nothing to do with carbon dating. It is more about using the geologic column (which has been found to be grossly misleading)

CzarChris:
From your comment, I can deduce you are an atheist.
Well, what I can tell you is that in every human endeavor their always charlatans who spoil the names of the good ones. That there are fakes doesn't mean there are no originals.

I'm an dedicated and unapologetic scientist and also a spirit filled, bloodwashed born again Christian. One of the problems we have in Christianity today is that there are a lot of unlearned zealous people parading their ignorance as truths. Many don't even know the history behind what they are prophesing and they go totally off track. On some pastors fleecing their members, that one na normal now. Mugu must fall for guy man to chop. Deception is the order of the day. Did dinosaurs exist? Yes they did and it's totally proven. All these can be easily proven from the creation story of the Bible, but some ignoramuses who haven't studied in-depthly will come here to spew rubbish.

God bless you sir.

I don't like it when Bible believers say "Dinos don't exist" or "Dinos never roamed the earth". it is just true that the existed and have been wiped out, the only problem is the time frame. Evolutionary thinking follows the time frame of geologic column, putting them between the cretaceous (65 million years) and Triassic (199 million years) period; using principle of uniformitarianism
Now, most of the wannabe atheist must have thought in their mind that the Dino fossils are carbon dated or other form of radiometric dating which is why I laugh most times when they scream about carbon dating or other form of radiometric dating. Worse is that they believe that science is exclusive to atheism and Christians (generally) are retarded and dumb folks; another statement of ignorance.

I hope they open their mind to FACTS and stop living in the fantasy that atheism is equal to science

DrLiveLogic:
Atheists will soon rush to this thread and start sounding as if any of these findings or science at large disproves anything in the Bible or is anti-god. Worse still, Christians who have poor knowledge of the bible will give them reason to believe so by misrepresenting the bible and living in denial of scientific facts.
Please Christians, pure science is from God, don't misrepresent him on this thread.







They are here. LMAO. I don't blame you guys though, I blame my fellow Christians for making you think like this
.

God bless you sir. I have always been bothered when some Christians help wannabe atheist think that science is antithetical to Christianity.

joelala:
i'm in love with you already sis. the thing is, you cant be smart, logical, critical and practical in your way of reasoning and be a Christian. Christianity teaches one to be dump and stupid! don't ask question just obey and follow like a zombie. How can a grown ass man be swallowed whole by a whale and walked home alive heal and hearty on the 3rd day and some people believed that? indeed you have to be extremely dumb and stupid to be a Christian.

Saying it doesn't prove that you are smarter. What most of you don't know is that you think you are smart, logical or have critical reasoning when it usually turns out to be opposite.

I'll start with those who have won the prestigious Nobel Prize in SCIENCE (at least, "...extremely dumb and stupid people..." should not be a Laurete). Do you know that over 70% of the prize winners are Christians? You should be smarter than them right?
Secondly, let's go to the foundation of experimental and emperical Science (modern science). Do you know that the modern Science has it's roots with Christianity? (Before you argue blindly, please read history of modern science). Again, you that is not a Christian is more smart and logical than deluded Christians such as Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Ampere, Robert Boyle, Johan Keppler, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, James Watt, and the list continues.

Your problem with the Bible starts when you deny existence of miracles. If you do that, I already set up questions for folks like you in last post of page 13 of this thread. You may wish to assist you brother in 'believe'

Pelecius:
Smiles

Alright, let me summarize my arguments here again so you can address them one after the other. I'll list them in numbers for easy reference and I would love that you respond by listing also. No redherring please

1. If miracles (supernatural events) are what you referred to as inconsistencies in the Bible:
(a) Do you deny existence of miracles?
(b) If no, what are the inconsistencies (that are not categorized under supernatural events) that you are talking about?
(c) If yes, how can you prove that miracles don't exist?

2. According to wikkipedia, miracles are event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Now please show me how the following (simplified) FACTS can be explained by natural or scientific laws:
(a) NOTHING exploded and created time, matter and energy
(b) At some point in time, unintelligent chemicals came together to form the most complex and sophisticated system ever known
(c) Also, the 'manual' for how the different units in system (b) above should work and interact to make the system efficient came from NOWHERE

I'll stop here to not burden you (that's if you'll even answer them in the first place).
Like I said, please try to address the points. No redherring.

Thank you

FlipModeSquade:
Funny..
I addressed your points squarely..
The only one applying diversionary tactics is YOU..
Until you can substantiate your claims and the existence of your god..
Your Bible stories are nothing more than outdated old wives tales..

Smiles

Alright, let me summarize my arguments here again so you can address them one after the other. I'll list them in numbers for easy reference and I would love that you respond by listing also. No redherring please

1. If miracles (supernatural events) are what you referred to as inconsistencies in the Bible:
(a) Do you deny existence of miracles?
(b) If no, what are the inconsistencies (that are not categorized under supernatural events) that you are talking about?
(c) If yes, how can you prove that miracles don't exist?

2. According to wikkipedia, miracles are event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Now please show me how the following (simplified) FACTS can be explained by natural or scientific laws:
(a) NOTHING exploded and created time, matter and energy
(b) At some point in time, unintelligent chemicals came together to form the most complex and sophisticated system ever known
(c) Also, the 'manual' for how the different units in system (b) above should work and interact to make the system efficient came from NOWHERE

I'll stop here to not burden you (that's if you'll even answer them in the first place).
Like I said, please try to address the points. No redherring.

Thank you

FlipModeSquade:
It's funny how you want to equate scientific process and research with your dogmatic Biblical beliefs..
Unlike you and your all knowing Holy book..
Science is a journey of discovery and nothing is set in stone..
That which is a theory or law today may or may not be found to be correct tommorow and science has no qualms adjusting to the realities of it's research and discovery..
Unlike your unwavering ALL KNOWING Bible.
Like I said..
Your Biblical truths is nothing more than unsubstantiated tales for the faithful to swallow hook line and sinker and just than another ancient tale about the origin of life and god.

Just as I predicted, you won't address my points but apply diversionary tactic.

It's all alright

FlipModeSquade:
Like I said..
The Bible is full of FAIRYTALE STORIES that only people who are ready to suspend their reasoning faculties and call it faith,would think it should be taken serious..
From Genesis to Revelations,all you have is one tall tale after another.
From feeding 5000 people with 2 fish.
To dividing the sea with a staff.
To humans living to 950 years.
To people being swallowed by fish and vomited out.
To people walking on water.
To bringing down walls by blowing of trumpets.
To raising the dead.
To one Whiteman and his wife giving birth to blacks and Asians.
To one man supposedly building a primitive boat big enough to accommodate the thousands of species of animals in the world,never mind how he managed to get to Australia and the Amazon to collect the resident animals.
To sleeping in the lion's den.
To humans being less than 10000years on earth.
To burning in an eternal lake of fire specially prepared to roast sinners and you better behave and not be naughty children.
To the belief that one Jewish man that was killed for blasphemy is actually God and came to die for naughty children.
To one Virgin being impregnated by one lustful Spirit.
To disciples witnessing the assention of a dead man into the clouds.
To a voice shouting this is my beloved in whom I am well pleased.
To someone supposedly commanding the SUN to stand still.
To all manners of FLIGHTS OF FANCY that populates your Bible.
I wonder why all these supposed MIRACLES are hard to come by NOW A DAYS..
But it's okay for you and others of your faith..
To believe every tale you read because you have faith and therefore swallowed every inanity you were dished out.
But like I said,strip away your faith and it is all a pack of old wives tale by SUPERSTITIOUS PRIMITIVE GOAT HERDERS..
And may I remind you that the Bible is just one of the hundreds of religious accounts and how you came to the reasoning that ONLY your own is the correct account,that should be believed is a story for another day.

Rom 1: 21-22 comes to mind.
You poured out old stale objections about miracles as if miracles have ceased to exist. Except you are present everywhere and all knowing, how can you claim that miracles never existed and will never exist?

You claim that it is those who are "...ready to suspend their reasoning..." that would take the bible serious. What a powerful claim from an All knowing! Maybe you should start from history of modern science to see how those who suspended their reasoning by a literal interpretation of the bible founded emperical and experimental science - the modern scientific method.

Now to your last paragraph, I don't know when I made such claim to you for accusing me that you'll deal with it another day.
I'm used to folks like you taking a diversionary tactic. They'll avoid the main points and just attack strawman, so much for those who didn't suspend their reasoning.

You didn't address my points earlier which I would love you to do. If you can show me how the miracles you stated here (done by an Omnipotent God, which sound logical) are worse than the ones I stated in my earlier comments (done by NOTHING); we can have a meaningfull discussion.

Till then
Peace be unto you

Didi965:
I thought the basis of Christianity was to show love, and in love preach the gospel to anyone .. why will you curse in the name of God... IT Is a SIN

He already apologized to the person already
Thank you Sir

Tetehjewels:
You cannot disprove what has not been proven yet you have already proven to yourself that God does not exist

What colour is your confusion?

Since you have already proven to yourself that God does not exist, I need to see this proof of yours in line with the terms I gave.

SIMPLE!

Stop embarrassing yourself with these your Bob and weave tactic. It simply shows your shallow mindedness.

MODIFIED
The philosophy behind atheism (which fuels evolution also) is not known or understood by many. It does not stand at all and that's why questions about the beginning are evaded. Where desperate attempts have brought about fantasies and just-so-stories of how nothing exploded and created everything. Also the issues of good and evil becomes vague, yet atheists question why God does not do this or that? But you can't have your cake and eat it at same time. There's no concept of good and evil in atheism, so how do you accuse God of being evil?
Again, where will they get concept of ABSOLUTE TRUTH? What will bring the standard for determining absolute truth if brains are just product of chemicals reactions? How do you expect me to know that the product (truth) of the chemical reactions in your brain is true while mine is false? Who set the standard? How can you even know that what your brain is giving is true if there's no concept of absolute truth?

These philosophical questions and others are unknown to wannabe atheists in many parts of the world, Nigeria especially. Yet they think religious folks are dumb

Tetehjewels:
Lmao

At the bolded you are just a walking joke

Atheism IS a belief system because YOU BELIEVE God does not exist based on non omnipresent, non omnipotent, non eternal views you hold on to as fact.

Since you are not omnipresent, omnipotent and not eternal, to enable you be an absolute authority in your atheism, all you have is FAITH in your alleged facts thus making it your belief system.

I love schooling sub par humans such as you

I wanted to reply too when I saw that but I don't know how he would respond (maybe using diversionary tactic again), which is why I held my peace.

Atheists are desperately trying to exclude belief from their definition as they are redefining atheism to mean the lack of belief in gods. They try to dodge being referred to as a form of religion but would fight for rights accorded to religious people.
In the "what is atheism?" article in American Atheist website, the also stressed that it is not a believe but before you read long, you'll see where they wrote "Atheism is about what you believe." As seen in the second paragraph below.
Talk about confusion �