₦airaland Forum

CHoccolaTE:
Christianity is such a load of crap, deranged control freak men that get orgasm from oppressing women are the only ones that useless religion benefits.

Wow!
This must have stemmed from hatred for God or can you pls show us how this your claim is true

luvmijeje:
I thought so too but I also came across this in GST 104

Well, your course came many centuries after Jesus said it. So it is still borrowing from what you still seem to disagree with.

I guess his question hasn't been answered yet (especially that you don't like the words of the Bible like the ones I quoted which cancels the lie of misogony and chauvinism; and this one you want to borrow since it makes sense)

Ladycewhy:
Soon una go tell us say all feminists will go to hell fire, so tell me what's not misogistic about being against freedom from gender oppression.

How does the Bible support gender suppression?

luvmijeje:
You. I. Don't do unto others what you won't accept.

This again is adaptd from the Bible; Jesus' words.
So we can't borrow wisdom from the Bible and yet use it to bash it.
In case you ask how you have bashed it, your earlier comments about Christianity has been negative

luvmijeje:
Who wrote the book of Ephesians? Is it not Paul? Is he not a man? Is he a spirit?

Now you've shifted the goal post.
My argument is that
THOSE YOU CALL CHAUVINISTS ARE NOT.
I quoted some of what they wrote (through God's inspiration) to show how God views all human - male or female.
Now you're asking if Paul is a man or a spirit. Of course he's a man but ARE ALL MEN CHAUVINISTS?

Mummyfour:
I agree with you. Wives must submit, but why do men forget that part about loving their wives as Christ loves the church.

Not all men don't follow their part anyways just as not all women don't follow their part.
It take special grace to obey all Biblical principles as a man who has not crucified his flesh. Same goes with women

luvmijeje:
The day women realised the laws of men and so called called laws of God were written by chauvinistic men.

I feel you have been deceived, thinking that "so call laws of God" were written by CHAUVINISTIC men.
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT" Eph 5:24.
This verse sounds chauvinistic I believe
Even from the beginning, we read
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
This makes man and woman equal in essence right from the beginning but the WIFE should submit to her husband while the HUSBAND must love his wife.
How this who may have made young think the way you do missed these (which is a little fraction of what the Bible really teach. I'm lazy to type and my keyboard is not well allign, hence susceptible to errors)

Mummyfour:
I agree with you.
In the name of submission, what women suffer eh!! Hmmm.
I support what the Bible says, but the way men take it is not the way bible prescribed it ooo.

Bible is balanced on it anyway
"Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord"
"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOME FOR IT"

If both parties obey this, then all problems solved

luvmijeje:
It is the absolute truth. Religion(Not just Christianity) is a tool of slavery. It limit your capability in life. It absolves you of responsibility. It makes man to be intellectually lazy.

Can you pls show how Christianity makes one to be what you claim they'll be?

Xbee007:
Science that made the phone you are typing with, the internet, and modern medicine that allowed us to live much longer. Yeah, it's stupidity to believe in it, lol. And religious people want to be taken seriously when all they've contributed to the world is fear chaos and backwardness.

It's a shame that you seem to contrast science with religion. Worse, you confuse OPERATIONAL SCIENCE (physics, chemistry, physiology etc) with the science that attempt to give us info about unobserved past.
Worst (lol) you may not know that religious people are the only one who can do science. What do I mean, Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam and other forms work with a presupposition which they use in explaining phenomenon or observation (as data don't interpret themselves). For the record, modern science was founded on Christian pressuposition and over 70% of Nobel Laurette in science are Christians. Be informed before trying low blows
I just hope you know that atheism is categorized as religion (according to US supreme court and enjoy Sam freedom entitled to religious folks in every free state)

Koolyarn:
Clarification accepted. Let do some scholarly talk.

According to the article
Fossils of this snake family did not appear again until the geological time period known as the Miocene – between 23 and 5 million years ago.

'As the global climate began to cool again after the Miocene, the pythons once again disappeared fromEurope, said Dr Smith

Secondly, from the inference i believed you were using dating (i.e carbon or any form ) to explain this defined age.

Can be kindly explain how they got the age.
Thanks in advance

I have a feeling that you were not supposed to quote me since I also don't go with millions of years age.

But as explained by etrange already, they either use relative dating method or use decay rate (assuming that it has been constant) to measure concentration of daughter isotopes remaining from a radioactive material in which the fossil is formed; or combination of the two.
For the former, it is assumed that the geologic column was formed over millions of years at a constant rate (another assumption - uniformitarianism). So the different layers are named and ages assigned to them. Hence, it is easy to assign age to any fossil found any of the layers.

bluefilm:
Absolutely none, whatsoever.

I mean, why couldn't God just say he has forgiven all men and that will be it?

What is the need for sending his own Son to die for the rest of the people so that sins will be forgiven?

It doesn't just make any sense.

So does calculus make no meaning to a primary 1 pupil

Koolyarn:
That wasn't the reply expected so it will be ignored.totally flat

For a start, I read Physics as major and the similar questions were thrown at my lecturer but no answer.
Carbon dating 14 have serious flaws and cannot be used for more than 20,000 years. I think is far less.
It is the fair" we have around but always have it inherent flaws. How old is the earth? How old are bones before decomposing.
Secondly water has been known to affect carbon dating, another serious flaws.

My initial questions are to determine if you could provide answers at the lowest stratum but seems I was roudly disappointed.
I guess I stay I'm my inquisitive lane while you stay on yours
Another thing please You got no case on the church

I was thinking in such direction with your initial questions but it was not just clear (worded clearly)

If you've read my comments in this thread, you should see that you don't need to ask me such questions as I definitely showed why the secular dating should not be taken really seriously.

Just some points;
1.Million year old fossils are not carbon dated. So it's not about carbon dating here, it's other forms such as Ur - Pb, K - Ar, etc.

2.Again, Carbon dating has nothing to do about the age of earth.

So I'd advise you not talk about Carbon dating when age of earth or million of years is implied.


I gave few reasons why other forms of radiometric dating cannot be trusted and since Carbon dating gives age that's still beyond the Biblical Chronology, there are evidence which points that such "ages" flunctuate also apart from the factthat it also relies on some unfounded assumptions.

By the way;
I'm a lover of God and lover of the field of studies which tries to understand how he sustain and uphold the universe science)

tollyboy5:
Don't be misinformed the church being in the affairs of government back then persecuted Galileo galililee , it years later when the power of the church reduced and people became more enlighten before sir Isaac newton was able to put to them fact not illusion

Though someone has responded already, I think I know about the Galileo affair before using it as an example of dissenters.
My illustration was definitely different from the picture of the average person about him.
Keppler rightly put it. He ws going against the ruling paradigm of that time, the best of science which was Geocentricity which the church also settled with.

etrange:
@bolded: Isn't that I why I specifically used the expression "closest to perfect". I mean, right from the first post, no one ever suggested you should take any dating method as perfect. I never for once said absolute dating is perfect. If I had wanted to say 'perfect', I'd use the word 'perfect'. But I said 'closest to perfect' which means it's not perfect but better than others. So you saying "I'm not taking 'closest to perfect' as 'perfect'" and making an argument around that when it was never in contention as it was clearly stated is somewhat confusing, bro.

Nevertheless, it was an insightful discussion. Thanks.

I said that because no other alternative is actually allowed though I get your point initially and it was not to entirely fault it at all but for sake of others who may see at as Π = 22/7 (An absolute truth).

Thanks you Sir

Koolyarn:
Biko , how long does it take for bones to decomposes ?

Why the carbon dating measured relatively to millions of years,?

Does it give the relative amount of time for us to calculate the timing.

Does the isotopic decay correspond to the bone or tissue decay

Does this not throw more questions than answers to the dating techique

I tried deciding this but I couldn't

realstars:
Why Are You So Anti To The Name Christ?

You may have missed my point. I'm a Christian and I don't like the name of Christ being dragged.
I complained that there's no need to link such discovery to Christ as it may give God haters motivation to come and be writing their national Anthem that God does not exist or making straw man of talking snakes and donkeys. But without linking it to Christ, there won't be need for such talks

MODIFIED
Just read through and see that my prediction was right. If Christ wasn't mentioned, they won't see any reason to bash and complain

bigeagleeye:
Thank you for being a succour, I had feared I might not get anyone who can think thru these issues without populism and unnecessary rhetorics!

At every given time, ACEGID prides itself in having at least 6 under30 PhD researchers and Nairaland has nothing less than 600,000 under40 PHD (Pull Him Down) commentators, its a pathetic narrative!

Chai
Just kill me abeg

Kobojunkie:
What has a bath house and the remains of it to do with Jesus Christ? It seems the reporters of these pieces are desperate to insert the name of Jesus Christ into just about anything found.

I tire o. Must they link it to Christ? Now some atheist may come to flex muscles with strawman

etrange:
I don't think the statement "relative dating is what is used to assign dates to fossils anyway" is entirely accurate. Both are used. A lot of legacy fossils date records have relative dates (in other words, majority of the dates were calculated using the relative dating technique) but this is as a result of the fact that the technique predates absolute dating. Radiometric dating is presently the most common choice of fossil dating method in the developed world except in cases where it's not an option.

I clearly acknowledged in my writeup you quoted that the dating techniques (all of them) have their limitations but radiometric dating is still the closest thing to perfection. I do have rather scientific responses to some of your questions though (especially about parent/daughter aka unstable/stable isotopes) but I wish not to prolong the chat. Just bear in mind that someone somewhere is always challenging whatever we know in science but until they come up with something concrete, we still use what we have.

Well, the reason I go with the relative dating is that it is easier and handy since the age assigned to geologic column is fixed instead of the expensive radiometric dating of the rock in which they are found. Now I don't mean that the rocks are not dated but it is a common experience among geologists that age according to local geology is mostly different to that gotten from radiometric dating. And this is because of the different issues which radiometric dating have, hence such dates are easily discarded.

Like I agreed, knowing decay rate and number of daughter atoms present, one can calculate the 'age' when a rock cooled but the reason why such ages are not taken serious by some (young earthers mostly) is that: different dating methods give different rates, the assumptions as stated before and the worst case is that rocks whose ages are known gave millions of years when dated. And as I stated before, there are other geochemical activities that shows decay rates may either be accelerated in the past or even point to lesser age but this is like challenging the ruling paradigm - such works don't eventually get published though other scientist write their form of rebuttals.
This is why I may not take the statement "radiometric dating is the closest thing to perfection" as 'perfect'.
For the last statement, the scientific community have a consensus and dissenters are persecuted severely (Galileo is a good example), so it may take a 'miracle' for them to accept a very good evidence that goes against the ruling paradigm as concrete. But what do I know sef

Katlyst:
Discovery isn't the major issue.
Characteristic of the strain to increase infection rate is quality information.
How can the world take us serious with less than 1% population test?
Half-baked research

We don't always have the data in science, so discovery is still something though it is known that the rate of mutation is faster an it can be predicted that variants will surface in little time.

So I don't find anything wrong in reporting cases of a new variant in circulation. After all, if the voice of the late Chinese Doctor who reported symptoms of tue virus was heard, maybe it won't become a pandemic

capitalzero:
It was actually published in July but media was not interested


https://virological.org/t/new-sars-cov-2-genomes-from-nigeria-reveals-dominance-of-viruses-with-spike-protein-mutation-d614g-and-additional-virus-lineages-in-circulation/527

You're right. Since the scientists are not in white countries, they may not get any attention.

Their report showed that there are mutant variant in circulation in Nigeria even as far as July. They may truly have noted the variant causing concern now in the UK

etrange:
Were you an art student? No offense really but while some dating techniques might be questionable, the question "who did the maths?" suggests you don't even know about the existence of these techniques. To answer your question, modern science uses radiometric dating techniques and this involves measuring the decay of isotopes in the fossil. It's called absolute dating cause isotopes break down at a constant rate over time through radioactive decay. Since rate is constant, the ratio of the amount of original isotope (parent) to the amount of the new isotope (child) can be used to calculate the 'absolute' age of the fossil.

These fossils can also be dated using relative dating techniques (not sure anyone does that these days) and carbon dating (generally not suitable for dating fossils).

Relative dating is what is normally used for assigning dates to fossils anyway. Comparing the 'rock' in which they are found with the local geologic column.

For the first paragraph, the methods stated are actually correct but problems being raised is the assumptions behind such methods which many don't know.
1. The rate been constant throughout? (There are evidence for it not being constant)
2. It a closed system? (There are evidence that does not support this also)
3. The initial amount of parent and daughter isotopes known? (There are evidence that challenge this assumptions also)

But getting these to the general public is an issue. The age of the earth is taken as FACT and proving otherwise with sound evidence would bring persecution for you; "publish or perish"

kingxsamz:
Oga you'll be wasting your time quoting me. Find someone else to argue with, if you feel like it.
Misinformation ko.

You don't need to tell me what to do. I told you already, project things of Christ wrongly in such a way that could mislead the simple; be ready to be refuted.

4aWe use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. 5We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ. 2 Cor 10: 4-5

kingxsamz:
Go and cry somewhere else abeg.
When you and your goons are ready to prove that your imaginary god in the clouds intervenes in your everyday life challenges, then come and meet me.

As usual, you never disappoint.
Track back and see why I challenged you to see how unstable you always are.
Always shifting the goal post.
Then set up a strawman. You should read extensively to understand what miracle is before talking about it (and many other things so as to save us the time in exposing your numerous misinformation)

kingxsamz:
Oga, I'm not ready to read all these explanations abeg.
The thread says "Do you believe in miracles".
Going by the definition of what a miracle is, and since it's on the religious section, I dropped my opinion.
If you want to argue find another moniker. I'm not reading your epistles.

There won't be any issue here if you knew that your claims are right and you can prove them. Now you changed your statements which sounded as that coming from an authority to mere opinion because you can't admit to saying you cannot prove it as fact.
Case closed, kingsamz idea that miracles does not and never existed is just his MERE OPINION.

JoeEeL:
Thx bro.

You're welcome Sir

kingxsamz:
Yeah, let those who claim miracles exist come forth and prove it.
If you're not one of them, then stop crying on my mentions everytime.

They didn't tell you specifically that it exist but they attributed many things to miracles - recorded or witnessed.
You on the other hand emphatically claimed that it don't exist and NEVER EXISTED, that was why I called you to prove it. The onus is on you this time and I helped you with how you could do that.

Even if I try to find an explanation for all events, I still know that it's not wise for me to say miracles don't exist as I've READ and indirectly seen (credible) miraculous events. Again, an atheist would love to dismiss miracles as accepting it is not compatible with his world view and I'm not an atheist. So I definitely believe that miracles exist because of the REASONS stated above.
Your claim on the other hand is like PROVING A NEGATIVE. If you didn't make such claim, I wouldn't have quoted you.
There's nothing to gain in quoting you other than people won't be misled by misinformation

kingxsamz:
Abeg carry your yeye explanation shift one side jor.
Prove that I didn't hire 10 thousand leprechauns around the world to hide my money.

I always say it, making a claim is so easy; "I can climb mt. Everest". But proving it is another thing. That's why folks like you run when asked to prove your outrageous claims.

Funny, I never made such claim. So why should I prove it. Very funny

JoeEeL:
The majority of Nigerians still believe in miracles. Many of them have no struggles believing in talking donkeys and snakes, graves bursting open and dead men walking and found among the living. Many of them even believe speaking 'ra-ta-ta-ta' means they're communicating in the spirit.

And some even believe someone called the devil makes them do the bad things most of them do on a daily basis. That's why if a life-or-death situation ever befalls me, I'll have to think 2ce before thinking of dying for Nigeria and her brainwashed slavish citizens.

Everyone believe one form of miracle or the other. Talking donkeys is definitely a strawman.
Some believe that an ALL POWERFUL God who made laws that giver the universe can 'specially' intervening in special way for very SPECIFIC purposes in a way that those laws seem to be modified for that SPECIFIC time.
Others have no entity who they can attribute Omnipotent to, yet they believe that Nothing made everything, clueless chemicals came together to form the most amazing machine known, first stars formed in a way that defy known laws of nature (another miracle) and so on. It get worse that if you disagree or expose such things, you would be insulted and may lose grants, tenures and standing in even in academia (talk about religious persecution)

Your second paragraph need to be checked under philosophical lens. The question is why do we do good? Why do we do bad? What is even the standard for what is good or bad?

So it's not a Nigerian thing bro

kingxsamz:
Miracles don't exist. It has never existed.
In this part of the world, people are too religious or gullible to be deceived easily by mere men who claim to have power to solve people's problems. That's why church is a lucrative business in this part of the world.
Think about it. Pastors claim to cure Hiv, leprosy, change one's genotype, travel for miles without fuel, raise the dead and so on. But have you ever asked yourself why none of them have ever performed miracle on an amputee so that the amputee's legs would grow back?
Exactly, because they know it's not possible. Abi faith can move mountains? So why can't it grow lost body parts?

Prove your first two statements, then we can take you serious.

FYI, that would mean you are ETERNAL and OMNIPRESENT. You have been in existence from eternity and must be everywhere ALL the time to be able to witness alleged miracles in order to know that they hold no substance.
I guess Logic and Philosophy should be made compulsory in tertiary institutions