₦airaland Forum

Image123:
Serpents are wise and subtle, don't lose guard. It's like father like son.

Sure Brother.
Thank you
I had a long discussion with him before though

LordReed:
What gymnastics? When people say god does not change are they referring to him changing his being or him changing his mind?

The one attempting gymnastics here is you.

Why are you even trying to do this? God cannot change simply means his being and attributes does not change.
It's something I explained already that people can change for example, from being a good person to a bad person.
It's a funny fallacy to equate changing one's mind on decision making to changing one self on attributes and behavior.

I repeat, there's no gymnastics possible here

LordReed:
When someone says "you have changed" are they saying you have become an entirely different type of being or that you have changed your mind/behaviour on certain things?

The context of the situation will determine. I don't believe that you don't know what he was referring to when he said God does not change, yet said he was portrayed differently in new testament.
I believe you would also know what he was referring to when he said God changed his mind. This imply that I can change my mind by not eating rice, and opting for beans. It doesn't follow that I have become a different person , say I used to be a cheat, but I am no longer one.
Those are the difference
You are more brilliant than the gymnastics you are about to play on his behalf.

LordReed:
Mentioning Jesus is not not the same as proof of his existence (note I do not doubt that he existed). Tactius and Josephus mention Jesus because they were speaking about Christians, it's like speaking of Buddhists and mention Buddha, it doesn't mean Buddha is still alive somewhere or that he has/had supernatural powers.

These were Historians. They were not just any Dick and Harry that were just babbling. The mentioning was in the sense of real events and of course, that the Christians were his (real person) followers. (I think I know that you don't subscribe to such idea)

And again, I wasn't arguing for who he was, but just that his existence can be corroborated with extra Biblical documents which he thought does not exist.

LordReed:
It is not. Jesus' existence is irrelevant, what is relevant is proving all the supernatural attributes.

Of course, it's a different game with you. He believed and is convinced that Jesus never existed and I only need to cite Historians who mentioned him.
Debating his life is another thing

Workch:
great, I totally agree with you

Lol

It's just funny that wannabe atheists won't be truthful to accept the fact that it takes great faith for them to accept what the belief.

At least, anyone seeing this will notice the "evolution" of wannabe atheists as they ask for proofs and then just dismiss it when presented with one.

Workch:
Cant you see that I am no longer interested in debating your kindergarten logic and scoliotic opinions.

The cheetah has nothing to prove to a group of dogs in a race. We have applied the theory of evolution in all fields of biological sciences, there is no point proving anything to someone that doesn't understand simple terms like speciation and adaptation.
Whatever rocks your boat is ok by me,

Smiles
Most times, it ends this way.
I asked simple questions, you evaded them. Turned to me to provide argument for my case, I did and advised that you get more info. You weren't interested in trying to even check but now resorted to the commonly used last tactic - "you deny evolution because you don't understand it" and the "this is scientist talk and not ignorant folk's discussion" argument.
And then the elephant hurling "Nothing makes sense in biology outside evolution", attributed to Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the leading evolutionists of the last century.

Like I repeatedly asked, how do we get higher life forms from simpler ones through adaptation and speciation? When we know that the difference between higher life forms is the information contained in their genome. And we know that adaptation and speciation are mostly caused by loss of information, so how can evolution (molecules to man) be explained through adaptation and speciation?

No evolutionist have an answer. But they'll rather use subtle adhominem "you don't understand evolution" when confronted to provide evidence

Do enjoy yourself

Workch:
ok

Of course, you probably weren't aware of (though a highly simplified version of) the fact that Scientists who accept the word of God (and even through which modern science was built upon) already explained such concepts. But even if you knew, you probably weren't interested as Kepler explained and faulted your arguments earlier.

Workch:
Provide any evidence aside the Bible That Jesus existed, I will change my mind

Really? Will you truly change your mind or apply gymnastics to what I'll provide so as to hold on to your atheistic faith?

But "aside the Bible..." Is the atheist ploy and tactic of separating the theist from his source of authority. It's like saying that one should explain Newtonian Physics without referencing the work of classic scientists. Or evolution without referencing the work of Darwin. It's futile since info are not brought out of vacuum. But I'll go ahead to play your game anyway

Many Historians, through whose works we know some ancient historical figures mentioned Jesus in their work. The chief I'll mention are
1. Tacitus
2. Josephus

I'll await the gymnastics

Workch:
I don’t know, just tell me how creation incorporates speciation and adaptation.

I want to learn that from a guru.

You don't know, but you accept it? I taught you became what you wanted all along because you claim not to see evidence for God. Wow!

There's no need to use sarcastic epithet. I'll just give a short summary. Study and review literature from creation journals to get technical expatiation of the subject.
Since the creation model rest on various (short but inexhaustible) statements from the Bible, hence, adaptation and speciation were used to explain the rapid diversification of life forms from the few which disembarked on the ark. And rapid speciation is still being observed even when most organisms have "specialized" by loosing much genetic information from a more general ancestor.
The "be fruitful and multiply..." Command in Genesis is also observed to have limits since it explained that organisms are to reproduce according to their kinds. But since what is being observed is that organisms loose genetic information through speciation, it follows that the ancestors (original created kind) have enough genetic makeup which allows for variation within itself, so as to adapt to various environmental pressure.

Workch:
There is not word like evolutionists, it’s a word used by scientifically illiterate people to describe those who accept the evidence in evolution.

I don’t think you deserve any further answer unless you grasp the basics of adaptation and speciation. It’s funny to think that you even know whatever you are saying.

How is speciation and adaptation part of creation model? Please educate me

Do you notice you have been avoiding my question, which evolutionists want us to believe?

I'll repeat it again.
How do we get all life forms from the first simple cell?

Workch:
Jesus never existed. That’s another problem.

No archeological evidence he did

Like I said, the first statement is a statement of faith. It's an atheist creed.
You are not an historian, so it's easy to just say WHAT YOU WISH and hence, believe it.
To believe you, one will have to discard all ancient history, which is nonsensical at least.

What type of archaeological evidence do you want for a man? How many ancient figures have archaeological evidence for them? Do you doubt existence of Aristotle, Plato etc? If no, what archaeological evidence do you have for them?

Workch:
I don’t even accept the evolutionary tree, I have not seen evidence for it’s accuracy, it will only give a basic description of how it happened. I don’t advice you to believe it either. A lot of scientists don’t take the proposed evolutionary tree seriously but the idea behind it is what we have evidence for.

But we have evidence that organisms adapt and change over time, which is evolution. You really don’t know what you want.

Lemme leave the first paragraph


You are just using the usual bait-and-switch tactic. Mere equivocation.
That organisms adapt and there's speciation are mechanisms which even predate Darwin. In fact, it is part of the Creationist model. The difference between the two groups is that evolutionists believe that All Life Forms arose from the UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR while Creationist believe that organisms are created in distinct kinds with enough genetic information to allow for speciation from such distinct kinds.

So how do we get plants and animals from the FIRST CELL? Since That's what evolution assumes.

Workch:
Just provide evidence for your god and I will immediately change my mind.

That's the burden of proof game most atheists play.
Now you want to tell us that your points have being refuted but you are an atheist because there's no proof for God?

The simple proof for God is Jesus. I told you this before but you attempted to deny his existence on earth. I responded that it is your atheistic bias (denial) that prompted that idea, because you'll have to discard all ancient history to be able to deny the existence of Jesus.
But you'll not want it that Jesus existed since you may not have reason to hold on to your atheistic believe.
Once again, the proof of God's existence is the fact that Jesus walked this Earth

Workch:
your first comment is funny.

Evolution is actually speciation and adaptation. Do you even understand what you are saying at all?

Of course, that's the usual tactics. But how does speciation and adaptation produce the evolutionary tree of life?
What evidence is there which support the idea that ALL LIFE FORMS as we have it now branched off from the first universal common ancestor (supposedly a "simple" cell)

Not forgetting the ignored part of my response since there are no evidence to support those atheistic statement of faith. Yet they make us look like they don't accept anything without evidence

Workch:
I don’t know, we don’t have evidence for it yet, we only have hypothesis called abiogenesis and panspermia.
What we have evidence for is that evolution occurred and every living thing on earth share common ancestry.

It’s better to have questions that has not been answered than have answers that cannot be questioned. Religion provide answers that cannot be questioned, that’s not a good way to learn.

If asked the evidence that evolution occurred, we may get evidence for adaptation or speciation which no informed one disputes, yet the "enlightened" ones want to tell us that it is evolution - the type that brought about all life forms from the first single ancestor.

But do we need to talk about the evolution when we can't even get how the first cell came to be? Worse, materialists have definitely reduce science to physics and chemistry, claiming that whatever can't be observed, tested and experimented is unscientific. But of course, same should go for evolution (it has never been observed and it'll never be, because no one can live for millions of years that's believed for it), abiogenesis (more researches are making the little hope fleet away, but that's the only atheistic myth for origin of life; so they have faith that it'll be cracked one day), panspermia (only pushing the problem of origin of life to outside of the earth. Again, no evidence of aliens, but the faith believe that given the vastness of the universe and the faith that abiogenesis occured even without evidence, then life must have arose in other places).

It's not lack of evidence for God' that makes people abandon Christianity, it's mostly the rebellious nature of man that kicks in. Then one use materialism to justify oneself in an intellectual manner.

kingxsamz:
Chai, so that one sef been dey pain you?
Eyah... Sorry o. I didn't know that my "okay" really hurt your feelings. That shit must have broken your heart. Sorry o.

I really shouldn't come to this level to engage in this unfruitful talk, but it's cool to make oneself clear.
I recall Image laughing at your inability to defend your errors when you responded with just OK. I believe that it must be embarrassing for you then, but now, you are trying gymnastics to use your emotional language of hurting feelings. I laugh in swahili.

If you had good defense, you wouldn't just respond with OK. As it's inconceivable that person A will refute B's claim, only for B to answer with "OK" and later boasting that A's feeling was hurt. To anyone with sound mind, it should be clear that B doesn't have any rebuttal, especially if A has always exposed B's misinformation

kingxsamz:
Chai, I must really be giving you constant heart breaks. So you were even reading all my posts and jotting down who and what was said to me? You and that other maniac no difference, just that shame no gree you quote me.
The person who you're deriving knowledge from doesn't even know what burden of proof is. Someone who asks for historical data for Athesim. birds of a feather. Chai.
As you don quote me, your body don stop to dey scratch you.

Chai, I must really be giving you constant heart breaks
That's your problem. You overly think of yourself. Now tell me how you must be giving me CONSTANT heart break. Since you have refused to learn how to choose your words carefully, explain logically

So you were even reading all my posts and jotting down who and what was said to me?
If it's a question, then simple answer is I wasn't reading ALL your post, neither was I JOTTING anything down.
You shouldn't be surprised anyway since I would normally read posts in a certain thread and yours is in this thread. Just as you read mine

You and that other maniac no difference, just that shame no gree you quote me.
You just begged a question (when you won't learn to stop using fallacies in argument). You are yet to prove that I read ALL your post and JOT them down, yet you rushed to conclude on such unprovable assumption.
And quoting you on your initial posts was waste of time since logical minds already engaged you, while you deflect here and there with your usual antics

The person who you're deriving knowledge from doesn't even know what burden of proof is.
Making useless emotional claims again. How can you prove that I am deriving knowledge from him? The fact that I acknowledged his sound arguments may not be ok with you, which looks strange to me. But your subtle adhominem is just mere emotional defense, it does not change anything.
Burden of proof is wannabe atheists' game. Starting with the revised definition of atheism as lack of belief, yet they mostly argue in the affirmative of the non existence of God. An agnostic also lack a belief as he doesn't have all the info to agree or disagree, but an atheist doesn't entertain the possibility (which is already a belief in non existence) but will run from such burden when challenged to prove such impossibility, by throwing the revisionist definition card.

As you don quote me, your body don stop to dey scratch you
Another baseless claim.
I have pointed out many of your errors again, work on them or defend them LOGICALLY.

kingxsamz:

As fear no gree you to mention me, na to dey ass lick people.
If you want to talk to me, talk to me direct, don't go through the corners...

Do you know I'm the one whom you'd simply respond "okay" to when I had the time to expose your inconsistencies and errors in your discussions?
Now, you seem to be in high spirit challenging me to engage you.
What can't motivation do?

kingxsamz:
Lol, bro if you dey fear to @me talk your mind.
All these asslicking you dey do sef. You dey celebrate person wisdom.
If that's wisdom to you, I don't know what to tell you. Las las, I go disgrace you like I usually disgrace your other colleague who quotes me 10 times a day.

I don't even know where to start from. Do you know how you complained about me mentioning you (actually, pointing out your errors and fallacies), that you decided to glorify yourself of being so important that I want to mention you?
I only replied that I wouldn't bother to point out your errors if you have said the right things at first. But it turns out that you keep repeating same misinformation even when showed by different intelligent folks that you are wrong. That's a reason I decided to ignore you.

You shouldn't be angry that I celebrate someone, he has largely avoided employing fallacies unlike you. It get worse when you even present his arguments out of context by omitting things he said. That's just pathetic.
Also, you must have been feeling fly when someone (of same ideology I believe) said you choked another, even when such person was just happy to read what would normally suit him, whether it is logically sound or not. Yet you seem pained that I celebrate someone who has employ good reasoning in his arguments. Sorry bro

And your ego is really running high, thinking you'd disgrace me . That's really funny of you.
Employ sound logic in your discussions and let's see how far you'd go with your worldview

neyoohhh:
You're still grasping at straw's.

Without a god concept there's no need for morality, it doesn't matter if it's budism, Islam.. the God concept is there to guide man's consciousness and conscience.( When no one is looking).

It's shocking you downplay the importance of religion on how the laws of morality evolved and it's role in advancing science/ civilization not to be confused with extremism.

Atheism has achieved nothing other than anarchy/ chaos, even worse you can't defend it.

You didn't notice he cuts some of your response, only to answer them out of context in some of your discussions. I knew him last year and since he finds it difficult to debate without using logical fallacies as his tool (straw man, equivocation, red herring, ad hominems etc) I ignored him.

I celebrate your wisdom

Image123:
This silly fallacy you keep having spasms about. So by your thinking now, if you can't prove that Jesus is dead, then it means He's alive?

Your guy doesn't really think of fallacies before posting. It's just pathetic

BeLookingIDIOT:
You're correct,they may say later on,due to more refined techniques or more empirical info,that the bones age is 67 rather than 70 million years old or 75 million... Maybe even 100 million years old; but certainly not 6,000 years!

Science as you say is not all truthful,but it's the closest to being all truthful.
A scientific field especially while at it's pristine stage,where there is less access to data and techniques to evaluate these data may be subject to uncertainties; but you should also know this: there are degrees to this science of a thing–some facets have reached the level of FACT.

The long age of the earth is a fact, evolution is a fact– there's so much overwhelming evidence for both that believing things could later veer off towards the opposite direction is unthinkable.

Just for your last paragraph, the statement are mere statement of faith. It's the philosophy on which they are founded that made them look as fact. The best bet is long age as it has more evidence for it. Unfortunately, there are fatal evidence against it, such that if it weren't for the fact that it contradict the Bible, it should have been abandoned. But just as Prof Richard Lewontin said "... We have an a priori commitment to materialism... for we cannot allow a divine foot".
Examples are the fact that fossilization requires a process which definitely punch blow on the foundation of long age - principle of uniformity. To go solve that, believers have to produce unprovable scenarios which must no align with religious text. Others are the recent discovery of cells and even tissues in dino bones which are IMPOSSIBLE in a long age scenario.
We still have the problem of C - 14 in age long stuff which also is IMPOSSIBLE in a long age scenario. The evidence against it is just as numerous as evidence for it, but the materialism of the day would rather hype it as fact for believers to spread, than really tell them the truth that it is highly debatable.

The worse is the theory of evolution. This has only gained ground because it is the alternative to special creation which would remove God from equation of life.
First of all, many believers would run away from abiogenesis, with which there won't be evolution in the first place. There's no need to start the movie at the 50 minutes mark. Let's start it from the beginning so we can all enjoy.
That said, there's no evidence of uphill evolution that Darwin proposed nor those aggressively defended by his bulldogs. What we see is fallacy of equivocation at all times. Antibiotics resistance doesn't imply that amoeba will lead to amotekun over millions of years. The mechanism for all those have now been discovered and seen that it does not confirm Darwinism. Rather, researches from the past few decades have continued to show how the theory does not hold water. But Ptolemic geocentrism stood for a thousand years, evolution is also enjoying same with so much elephant hurling everywhere - "evolution is a fact", "those who deny evolution are stupid and are science deniers" etc.

neyoohhh:
I didn't claim God exists, i said i can't prove or disprove it , big difference from i am an atheist.


The conversation is civil. I did not say anything to insult.


Let me repeat, you don't have the iq to disprove the existence of God.

Like I said woke antics, all leftists ideology, egalitarian nonesense that has no bearings with the real world and you can't differentiate between capitalism, morality and it's affects, evolution and religion, and how everything intersects.

There are good reasons why religion is fear based, there are also reasons for why it's become capitalist and extreme in places like Africa where iq is generally low.

Bottom line, it's not the religion, it's the iq, the same level of understanding that marred religion, is the same reason why you egalitarian lefiists wannabes would always get it wrong.

An intelligent man would never boldly subscribe to a philosophy he can't back up with fact's and data , if there's no way to disprove the existence of God, then it's best to keep an open mind until more data is available.

I read is post and it was clear that he didn't understand what you meant by saying science has its roots in Christian presupposition. He went on to attack straw man as his usual tactics.
I engaged many wannabe atheists on such topics about modern science having roots in Christian presupposition and if they don't want to appear 'foolish' after confirmation, they tend to end the discussion.

It appears that most of them just feed on the half truths their itchy ears love but don't really informed on the science they tend to claim monopoly of. In fact, they get surprised to hear that over 70% of Nobel laureates in science are Christians. Since they've been willing to accept the lie that Christianity makes people dumb.

The worse equivocation I experience is when they equate historical science such as paleontology or other evolutionary biology to hard science like Physics, Molecular Biology, etc. You question aeons of years since you know of the assumption that was used in such technology and the fact that the technology is not even the authority in assigning age, as results from it are laughable many times; then they ask you to throw your phone away, equating science/tech which brought about phone to a historical science which rest on materialism philosophy.

It's fun anyway and I personally love to encourage others who may have been shaken by the half truths just as the Devil used it for Eve.

Dtruthspeaker:
Watch Out Pelecius, the guy you are talking to is Truly a Snake as The Original LortReed in Game of Thrones, He Is A Satanist and A Hater of God not an atheist.

He is Nairaland's Satan come to devour and swallow up the souls of foolish people who taught they were wise eg CAPSLOCKED, Budaatum, even Muttleylaff at a point and many others who no longer speak on nairaland.

He fled from Religion Section were his work has been destroyed to come over here to catch foolish souls who do not know The Truth and Law of Life and Death but think they do.

You would be well advised to stay of from him for sake of yourself and your soul, if you love yourself.

He is very very knowledgeable and very intelligent,Twisty and Beautifully Winding with words and spirit (evil spirit that is, and if you do not know spirits already, you are dead prey already), as A Snake,

He would swallow you up (as one) if you do not take counsel and stay away from him,.

He is only reasonable when he can beat you, but grounded lying and cheating is always in his hand to use when and where necessary, and he accurately uses it too.

If you do not hold your life, he will eat you up as he has done others here that's what he is here in this Section for!

You already know the popular warning "Fly wey no dey hear word"

I sincerely appreciate your concern and love. To a small extent, I'm a battle scared fellow in this type of worldview war. And my aim is not to win (as that's the work of the Holy Spirit), but to ensure that others are not taken away when there seem not to be an answer for the reason of the hope we have in us (1 Peter 3:15)

LordReed:
Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

The basis of my Morality is human wellbeing, I measure morality by the effect it has on human wellbeing.

Thanks

First of all, making distinction between GOOD and BAD could be vague. One will have to ask, who defines what is GOOD or what is BAD? That is, what do we call GOOD?
Secondly, who decides that a certain BEHAVIOUR is GOOD or BAD?
Mind you, since you seem to be in the atheism camp, it'll be great if your answers are consistent with an atheistic WORLDVIEW

The answers for those above would determine if we can talk about HUMAN WELL BEING even in an atheistic worldview.

Thanks for being nice

budaatum:
When Martinez39 and I did this sort of question we ended up with beans, lol. You might want to see how we cooked it.

First, who told you atheists are this or that? Is there some church where atheist go to get there unshifting from that I haven't heard about, or is it not true that atheists come in all forms?

I'm sure you've heard of atheists who do not believe in the existence of Gods for instance, but would you say you are familiar at all with atheists who know for absolute certainty that Gods do not exist except as figments of the imaginations of those who imagine them?

Beans, you see. Lots of different ways of cooking beans and that's even before you start considering the different types of beans that exist and find that not all beans are the same.

Second. How dare you pressume the right to be telling buda what buda can or can not be? Are you the God of buda that you would deign to create buda in the image that pleases TheSourcerer? What kind of atheist does that, as in, make out they are the God and creator of buda?

As for this bit. I do watch movies and just recently watched the Matrix trilogy, and I think I relate with TheSourcerer who is a people whom I think relates with me since he opens these threads and takes the added effort to specifically mention buda, so I don't understand the difference apart from you do relate but perhaps are trying to deceive yourself that you don't

Please know that if the masses are full by buda, yippee! But buda is far too arrogantly humble to assume to be able to fool as many as the masses with the little resources that buda has. Just you open your eyes so you see what is before you will do, thank you very much, TheSource.

Wisdom

budaatum:
If that is your religious belief, who am I to argue with you?

I can just hope you see how you've described the effect that religion has on you, and note how it differs to the effect that religion has on say, buda.

I mean, who really needs a dictionary if we can observe ourselves conning ourselves?

This is out of this world.
It's difficult for many folks to see the wisdom in what you wrote here

LordReed:
If your god exists then he is the most immoral being in existence because he doesn't even follow his own rules.

What is your definition of morality?
What is your standard for measuring it?

Your answers to these questions would set the tone for other discussion.

Nothing is lost. Christianity actually helps make a sane society. So it's nit about going to church, it's about having fellowship with God and loving your neighbors. There's nothing bad in me having a God's standard of morality.

But it's beyond that. The fact that Jesus came, died and rose is enough to demololish any conspiracy theory.

There are some alleged exoplanets but none has been found to be like earth. Oxygen and/or water is not the only condition that support life, there are other conditions which the only (known) planet that supports them is earth.
Earth is really SPECIAL but materialism bias would not want folks to agree.

Xioxing:
I know you will write a good Episode to justify your lovely daddies up there but I won't bother arguing with you cause everything in life is self explanatory, someday you will realize the truth in what I said but for now Flex!!!!

You KNEW I'd write...
Wow! You should be an object of worship o
Then "everything in life is self explanation"? Very funny. Then no need for learning again. Logic has suffered sha

I'll realize the TRUTH in what you said? Question begging epithet fallacy.
These may be avoided if the topic of the OP was talked about, and not bringing the fallacious Christianity vs Science propaganda