₦airaland Forum

simplesearch:
Anytime science undertake a travel back in time they almost always end up making a fool of themselves. Past events for which one is not an eye witness can only be learnt by written or recorded evidence(s) procured by eye witnesses to such times and event, this is further handed down and preserved through history by same medium, no scientific equipment can undertake a procedure by itself i.e sensing and divulging abstract information by itself . The second factor to obtaining accurate info on past event can only be through God himself who created all things from the beginning, this was the means by which Moses was able to learn and accurately pen down vital details on creation without making a single mistake, and till date none has been able to provide a convincing alternative to that narration. In a nutshell, No equipment can practically go back in time and none can navigate to the nearest future except in theory, this fact is evident to Albert Einstein himself.

It's just funny that wannabe atheists don't differentiate operational science and historical science.
You correctly pointed out that no scientific endeavor can tell us what has happened in the distant past. It can only attempt to interpret stuff like fossil through whatever 'lens' it works with (uniformitarian billions of years or using the Bible as guide, putting into consideration the catastrophic global floor). This is the reason, I feel historical science may never be accorded Same respect that operational science have - Nobel prize, Albert Einstein award for science etc.

Eniola40:
You are very intelligent sir, bless you

This is really funny sha, I can only laugh

FuckThaMod:
Gbam! I doubt he'll be able to understand that tho

Hmm
What I see here most times on NL are wannabe atheists who hide under Science! Science! to throw shots to religious folks.

Do you even see the error in his post? It's not important as enemy of my enemy is my friend. I get that he wants to use the argument of info from distant galaxies as proof for an old argument, but he made error in the argument and you just happy he made a post.

dazzlingd:
Lemme challenge your mental ability.

First can u imagine the ends of the universe, I mean where everything ends, if to u, it ends in just our atmosphere, then what lies beyond that atmosphere, just a brick of walls?
Then if it ends in our solar system, wat lies beyond our solar system? Then beyond our galaxy?

If u have the brain capacity to imagine it, then u will realise the universe is endless meaning there are places billions and trillions of light years away from where u are.

If a place can exist billions to trillions to infinity light years away from you, then it took them gazzlions of light years to achieve that distance....that's the simple easy way to know that the age of earth being billions of years old cannot be a lie?


Ps: you can only understand what I have said up there if u have the brain capacity to think it...but i doubt u will, not your fault, many people have low IQ

I've been reading comments all along but I need to come in here. Info from stars or galaxies that are Light years does not mean that the earth is billions of years old. I didn't expect you to make such error. It is normally used to calculate distance from where such 'info' is coming from (i.e, the star, galaxy, etc)

Grandmeister:
Seals and walruses
Dolphins and porpoises
Antelopes and gazelle
Rabbit and hare
Squids and octopuses
Foxes and coyotes
Pangolins and armadillo
Pythons and boas
Butterflies and moths

Yeah
I don't think I even know pangolins anyway but I recognize and can distinguish others

OneMillionBoys:
Dinosaur never existed.

Really?

WILLuKPquiet:
Quoting the Bible highlighting certain areas without saying a word of your own, saying why you quoted it or highlighted the areas only dipcts how senseless and stupid you and the spirit directing you are.

If you dedicate the same time you use in finding faults in the Bible to searching the opinion of the world about your religion, you would know that without your religion in existence, the world would have been a better peaceful place.



You've got no sense to back the fault you are looking for in the places you quoted and highlighted up.

It still shows pure undiluted senselessness.

He is actually still behind. Those stuff have been refuted long ago but I guess he is not up to date.
It was the same biology that he used (not him anyway, cos I believe he only copied what a biblioskeptic wrote) that was still used in refuting the attack.
A simple search of 'does rabbit chew the cud?' is just enough to see 100s of pages that have answered that old and refuted challenge

gypsey:
You have made no sense atall, what's with the repetetion of laughed at me? you didn't need to apologise either your laugh didn't mean a damm thing to me, I only mentioned it to let you know how irrelevant and unfunny it was, so stop with the silly apology repetetions it's distastefully creepy, You don't have to respond this time you still would make no sense to me, i am neither religious nor a christian, I don't believe God/Jesus ever existed. not interested.

mind how you go, Ciao!

Of course I will respond.
A point of correction here is that I never apologize for laughing at you. I apologized in case my laugh (about your claim) got to you. They are two different things
I am not here to make you believe in God, I can't do that. It's God who can do that through his Spirit.
Saying I make no sense doesn't make your assertion right. It's more of an emotional response. I apologized as a civil man and a Christian for not insulting you but laughing at a very funny statement, yet you said I don't make sense.
It's only important to note that one who is ready to learn does not shut his mind.

Peace be unto you

Lordcassy:
BRO ALL YOU SAID HERE IS RUBBISH.. STOP CONFUSING YOUR TINY BRAIN AND IF YOU ARE A STUDENT OF BIOLOGY THEN YOU ARE A BAD ONE....firstly you can not compare bacteria and viruses evolution with that of mammals. E.coli replicates within 5minutes and even at that can not undergo mutation with out extreme stress and external activity like subjecting them to low antibiotics that they now become resistant to it that does not mean it a new species it is still E.coli just that it is resistant to some antibiotics. hyenas in south africa and the ones in the desert have difference in appearance that does not mean that it is a different hyena. they just have different way of conserving and adapting to environment. that does not make them different species
IF FAR EASIER FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUSES TO EVOLVE AS THEY ARE ONE OF THE SIMPLEST FORM OF LIFE AND FOR THE FACT THAT YOU SAID ANIMAL CAN DO THAT IN 500 YEARS SICKENS ME.

WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 9 MILLION SPECIES OF ANIMAL KNOWN SO FAR.. SO MALE AND FEMALE WOULD BE 18 MILLION BRO GO AND MEASURE NOAH ARK AND TELL HOW THE HELL YOU WANT TO FIT ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ON THE ARK? TELL ME

Is making an informed comment which is different from what you know rubbish? Then do your research before calling what you are yet to know rubbish. Calling it rubbish does not refute it, it is just a fallacy
Then, I never compared EVOLUTION of bacteria or viruses to that of mammals. That is another fallacy (strawman). How you read that into what I wrote still amaze me.
What you said has no relevance to what I said earlier but I guess you are not familiar with how a ‘new specie’ is defined: If a population arises from another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent population, it is generally defined as a new species. And this has been observed. In fact, an 18 year study by Zoologist Peter Grant has shown that new species could arise in only 200 years (in the journal, Scientific American). Though it is believed that species branch off from a common ancestor in tens of thousands of years, but real observations have been made by Biologist of how rapid adaptation to new environments, leading to ‘new specie’ is formed, such as guppies in Trinidad ( an evolutionist said this happened in just 4 years which is a rate 10,000 to 10 million times faster than what is being ‘read’ in the fossil record), lizards in Bahamas, mosquitoes in London underground station, etc
My point remains that 4500 years ago is good for speciation (diversification) from the original ‘kinds’ that disembarked from the ark. I said 500 years is not a small number not to talk of 4500 years, how you changed that again to mean that I said “animals can do that…” in 500 years amaze me still. I want to believe that the person who thinks that I’m a bad student of biology (wrong though) and have tiny brain should be able to comprehend and not misrepresent my ideas.
Finally, asking how 9 million species of animals fit into the ark is still another fallacy of arguing with a wrong premise. No informed creationist believes in fixation of species but the model predicts rapid speciation (which has been observed) from the few original kind. I already talked about it in my first response

gypsey:
Rubbish!

tell me what's different from what you have written above and my explainations,

you still didn't tell me what language your bible is written

in what languange was the story of the bible in which you understand is written?
can you read latin, Greek or hebrew? is king Jame bible not a bible?

i am not sure if you are laughing at your ignorance or who's, either way keep laughing only i didn't find anything funny here. i am here to learn i don't know it all.

I'm sorry if how I laughed got to you, it was just too funny to claim that the Bible was WRITTEN by the British

What was different was that I explained that the Bible was written in an original language which is different from what the language of the Brits and they only made a TRANSLATION into English language while you claimed that it was written by the British folks (KJV)

I already explained o. It was written in Hebrew and Greek and translated in to so many languages of the world

I read the English translation and Yoruba translation of the Bible
I cannot read Latin, Greek or Hebrew and KJV is only a TRANSLATION of the Bible just as there is a Yoruba or Hausa translation of the BIble


Like I said already, I apologize if how I laughed got to you. I am not the ignorant one here, though I don't know it all

I just hope you get the concept of translation. Tsu Zu's art of war was WRITTEN in the Chinese language but we read an English TRANSLATION of it. We can say that it was written by the British.
Once again, I apologize if how I laughed got to you

Peace

Loopdeeloopa:
The bible says the earth is about 6000years old, no way all animals would have diverged so quickly... It takes 100 of thousands of years for some animals eg Domestic dogs diverged from a now-extinct population of wolves 27,000-40,000 years ago.

500 years alone is not a small number of years not to talk of a thousand or 4500 years that this happened. Since Family and Genus is higher than the specie level, one only need a loss of function or traits from a group of some "kind" and this group can be called a new specie if Natural selection doesn't eliminate that group. It is being observed today especially in the lower complex organism such as strains of virus, resistance of bacteria to antibiotics etc.
That number of years is good enough again since scientists observe new species being born ever since than observing new structures (say feathers) added to an existing organism (say reptile)

The year you gave above is a conjecture. No one was there to know that age, relying of fossil to give date some times lead to circular reasoning. "It is so and so years because the fossil was found in so and so level of the geologic column, then the level of geologic column is so and so years because a certain fossil is found there".
Radiometric dating fails some time and the assumptions they rely on has been critiqued by many Scientists which is one of the reasons geologic column is being used most times to date fossils

DarkJeddi:
Maybe you should extend this energy in tackling the guy I quoted..

He was the one that CLAIMED that THIS is the EVIDENCE of the EXISTENCE of your god..

Alright, I just saw that. But what actually got my attention is the generalization

gypsey:
well .. baffle along. the bible you are reading from what language is it written in? Bible = B I B L E are those Hebrew letters? who introduced the bible and the word bible to you dumb africans?

now tell me in what language bible was written clever clog!

have you even heard of king James version bible? next time stay in your ignorant lane.

Hahahaha
Very funny
I actually find it difficult to respond as I'm still laughing
"Have you ever heard of King James Version bible?" Hahahaha
I was right all along to say that your comment baffles me.
Please, I'm not really making any mockery here but it is jus too funny.

Alright let's say something. The KJV is not even the first translation of the Bible in to English but it became the most popular TRANSLATION anyway in the 17th century. If it is a translation, how will it be written by the British? It's like saying that the Yorubas write the Bible because there is a Yoruba translation of the bible. The simple answer is that it was written in another language; Hebrew for most of the Old testament and Greek for the New testament. There are 10s of thousands of manuscripts in Greek for the New Testament which of course predates the English Language and the discovery of Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) which was dated to the time of Christ have majority of the Old Testament in the Original Hebrew.

You can make more research sir.

Peace

gypsey:
Is this crap supposed to make sense?

The fact that (you?) claim the British wrote the bible still baffles me.

BotherMleeper:
Of course they can.

But in this specific instance their belief is getting in the way of their science

Alright sir

Image123:
Because science is not a miracle, duh. Science is something provable and repeatable. Pulling out millions of years from the anus and calling it carbon dating or radioactive blabla is forever laughable. The discrepancy and contradictions in each discovery is shameful. Someone would find a fingernail in the wilderness and make a book out of it giving you zobo models and pictures of what the creature loved eating and its first high school love. You will be shouting wow science because there is a documentary on it handled by professor. You are more gullible than most believers, only they've not yet found a way to tithe your gullibility. You already paid full tuition though.

WILLuKPquiet:
j

You've made a lot of nonsense guy.

The top of the mountain is cold and cold preserves things. And besides scientists have claimed to find woods older than that.

What about the fossils of 100 billion years they tell you mugus they found everyday.

Because they are scientists you believe them like zombies but have you known that there are thousands of science claims that were later found to be wrong?

For your eye you are smart.

You remind me of the quote: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

RaptorX:
What did the animals eat during their sojourn inside the ark and how was their waste disposed.
Did the fishes also came inside the ark or stayed in the water, what about ants and insects. How did the animals in Africa, Australia etc travel to get on the ark.

Good questions which have been answered. You can make your research to find the answers if you'll really want to get them. I can refer you to a page anyway

BoboNogoDie:
Who told you they're?

Excuse me? Are you equating science to atheism? Do you mean that many Scientists don't believe the bible?

brainhgeek:
There are thousands of creationists who are scientists and notable physicians too such as the famous Been Carson.
Some believe also in intelligent design which attempts to substantiate God's existence and creations through scientific evidences and explanations.
Some notable Christian scientists include; Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Loius Pasture, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, George Washington Caver, Carl Linnaeus, Allesandro Volta, John Dalton, Charles Babbage, Robert Wicks, Samuel Morse..........the list is long but, I am very fascinated by Isaac Newton who devoted more time to studying the Bible than studying math and physics.

Thank you sir. I don't know why many folks in NL thinks that Christians are in opposition to science and cannot become expert in the field. It is a field of study and it'll sound nonsensical to make such claim when most don't even know that Christians birth modern science

ELibraryNG:
After reading the Epic of Gilgamesh I believed that Noah story was copied from folklore.

Now they are claiming to discover a folklore ark. Funny

Smiles
How did you come to that believe? What makes you think that it was copied? Where other flood stories found all around the world (Australia, South America, Africa etc) which has striking resemblance to that of the bible also copied from that of Gigamesh?
If it was a folklore, how come you get same story (with difference in detail) all over the world? This are questions I'd love you research on objectively (two sides of the coin) but being objective is difficult these days as even the best of scientists are still biased.
Good luck in whatever you believe

kingxsamz:

But if the research was based on dinosaur remains, with millions of years attached to it, you'll be the first to discredit it.
Clowns.

Well, I think that I have talked about axioms before. Long agers will discredit anything in the bible that looks like it happened few thousand years ago and so Young earthers will do the same with data which are interpreted to millions of years ago. Axioms is the main issue here.
Radiometric dating is taking as absolute but the assumptions on which it rest is very shaky as there are laboratory experiments that have faulted those assumptions, especially; that the rate of decay of radioactive elements have been constant through out ages, no contamination and others.
It should be known that there are ages of known stuff (rocks, trees) which give millions of years and the second assumption above is being modified to explain the anomaly.
So, there will always be controversy. We just have to live with it as discoveries are being made

Loopdeeloopa:
.
My own question is if all animals fitted into Noahs ark how did polar bears and crocodiles survive the same temperature? How did the carnivores not eat the preys?

Make your research sir. In the creation model, we don't have all the animals that are on earth now at that time and the model predicts rapid speciation of animals from an original kind (from a genus or family level in taxonomy). This is what is being observed as speciation and hybridization nowadays.
Again, you should know that the size is not just one ship but an extreme ocean liner and Noah doesn't need to put adult animals, just pairs of the baby animals which God must have directed towards the ark. The Hollywood movie: Noah did an excellent job with the size of the ark and catastrophe of the event (though not still accurate though), but with every Hollywood rendition of historical events, it must corrupt the real history to make it very appealing to its audience.

Do a research on the subject and should be able to get answers to many questions that you may not even think to ask

kingxsamz:
This research will leave theists in confusion.

My big bro, we are here again
Well, I personally don't believe that it can be found as I was fascinated when I came across it some years ago, but some of their methodology were flawed and the reason given in the article that it would mostly be used for making houses because it would be difficult to get any good timber elsewhere. Also, the timber shouldn't be found "intact", though the report says it was buried and excavated but since the simple carbon dating already cast doubt on it, then they can go for ANOTHER 'suspect' if they are bent on finding it.

Finding it or not does not really affect the firm believe of most Christians anyway just as missing links doesn't change firm believers of evolution (whether Christians or Atheists)

gypsey:
Ofcourse the bible is real, the british wrote it.

People's ill informed comments on NL baffles me sometimes. I use to believe that NL is only for folks that are well informed on what they are talking about but statements that I have been seeing and something like this (above) changed my orientation

Ibime:
To believe that Noah's ark was found, you first have to believe that all the animals in the world can fit on one boat.

Noah's Ark story is the one story from the Bible that made me lose belief in the Bible completely.

Very funny
You didn't even make a research on the subject to see what scientists (Bible believing) have done first before you make your conclusion and claire it's what made you loose faith.
The flood, a one time catastrophic event is so big a subject that you can't study the works done on it in few months.

If you would love to get materials on it, I'll be glad to assist.

DarkJeddi:


A wooden piece of flotsam?

On such flimsy threads religion hinges its credibility..

Com'on
A group of evangelicals, and not the whole Christian body. You should read were it said a young earth creationist doubted the discovery and other Christian body. Many of those "discoveries" especially, those by Ron Wyatt are being rejected by a very large number of Christian ministries especially if it does not successfully pass some scientific tests. It's fallacious to make a generalization to Religion (not even Christianity) because of what A (very small) group claims to find. Mind you, they never claimed it's FACT, just as other branch of historical science makes speculation about a discovery. The only difference here is that you'd here folks screaming Science! Science!

BotherMleeper:
"a group of evangelical christians were convinced that they had founyd the remains of Noah's Ark."

What's your point pls?
I hope you are not of the opinion that Christians can't be Scientists

Shukusheka:
You obviously don't know much about evolution, your first mistake is assuming evolution must have a purpose. Evolution is basically what you just mentioned, adaptation.

Did you read my response to the first person who quoted what you quote? How did my whole message lead to me concluding that evolution must have a purpose?
Evolution is adaptation? I see why you accused me of not knowing evolution.

Again, what you quoted is not the complete idea I was expressing. Read the original response, maybe you'll be able to see the reason I said the topic is misleading.
Just follow the story (it's simple as that)

dazzlingd:
U can't fight knowledge I repeat, knowledge is different from norms, yes u can challenge the way things are done and that in itself is pursuit of knowledge.
Evolution is not a scientific fact but still in the pursuit of knowledge, they did not kill the idea that evolution did not happen without searching for evidences and accept the belief that we were created in a garden 6000 years ago.

Why would someone rather believe in a talking walking snake, that all human races came from just a couple barely 6000 years ago and find evolution unbelievable. That a talking snake that use to walk, stop walking and that all races on earth came from one just couple 6000 years ago is evolution itself in the speed of light which is impossible, the theory of evolution is far more convincing which postulates a gradual adaption process leading to
gradual modification in structures over several hundreds of millions of years to arrive at what we have today and yet perfection hasn't been achieved.
The adaption will continue for as long as the planet exists, a perpetual process that will never stop. That is evolution.

Use of words can be very funny. A slight modification of a group of words can change its meaning, hence I’ll leave your first paragraph
Now, I hope you don’t confuse “theory” to mean that it is not yet a PROVEN FACT. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is a proven fact, yet called a theory and it should be known that evolution defenders generally frown at the idea of relegating theory of evolution as an unproven fact. In fact, they will cite ‘laws’ that are attached to the theory (though these laws/facts are not disputed as they are not ‘patented’ by evolutionists but are also found in creation science model of origin). Of course, the theory is getting revised many times, the auxiliary hypothesis are being modified but the core hypothesis is kept and protected. Professor Richard Lewontin, a retired evolutionary Biolgist and geneticist said:
“…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door”
I don’t know if you are an atheist that you question why someone should believe in the Bible but I would love to give you a scenario. It is easy to criticize what you haven’t experience especially if it is what you can’t observe directly. How do you think people would have reacted to the claims of the first person who reported of having headache? As it can’t be observed directly but can only be experienced. Same is spiritual things, they can only be experienced and not observed directly, just as feelings such as love, joy, anger etc cannot be explained using laws of Physics or Chemistry.
For the gradual modification in structures that you talked about, have you hard of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY? I would love that you check it if you have not.

For answers to your questions on population growth and race (skin colors) from one couple, I can refer you to a page if you wish

dazzlingd:
The bolded says a lot u don't understand what you say,
For the sake of getting informed, go and read more about evolution, adaptation, ecology ecosystem etc then u can come back to this thread to make your comments

This again is misleading. I would love to ask if you picked the statement you bold out of the paragraph or you read it with paragraph before 'advising' me to read those things (concluding that I'm not informed on them)

If an article have a heading like: How mammalian eye evolved", You would expect to see how it (allegedely) statrted from a spot and how it added functions over time (say millions of years) to get to what we have now. I did not see a process that made mosquitoes to develop or loss functions that attracted them to humans in the article. I'm hoping you'll show me so as to heed to your advice.

Bacteriologist:
I bet a rat's ass you have no idea about evolution too. But for the sake of discussion, can you define what you understand by evolution?

Nice try!
I asked you to get us informed on what you call evolution and you refer it back to me.
Anyway, evolution is defined in two forms: Special theory of evolution and General theory of evolution (my auto correct gave theory as their in my initial response).
I warned about the bait and switch tactic that is being used by adherent of evolution and that was why I placed (GTE) in bracket in my initial response.

So, I definitely have an idea on what evolution is. Let us have your well informed knowledge of what it is