₦airaland Forum

musicwriter:
Stop evading my request. Provide me pre-Nero, non-Roman source proving your Jesus. This's what the discussion should be if you want me to keep responding. Tell me about people who met Jesus while he was living. Please don't deviate from this.

Nobody in history said Jesus healed me.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Nobody in history said I was among the 5,000 multitude Jesus fed with 5 fishes and 2 loaves of bread.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus turn water to wine.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was beaten by a mob.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus with my two eyes.

Nobody in history even said I lived in the same village or city or town with Jesus.

Nobody witnessed it because its MYTHOLOGY. Prove me otherwise.

This is just sheer desperation because after addressing all your objections as i documented in the last response, you want to make a crazy one so as just to justify your errors that I have been showing without you addressing or admitting them.

Before, I address them, you would have to:
1. Admit your very first charge about Rome knowing Jesus
2. Either address or admit the misinformation you made which were listed in some of my response
3. Tell me if it is possible to get a non- Chinese primary source for Tsu Zu, a non Egyptian primary source for Pharaohs of Egypt, a non Roman source for the Nero you even talked about. Note the word "primary"

number 3 should be possible for you since that is exactly what you want me to do

musicwriter:
I never told you I approve of Luke or the book of Barnabas. I can't believe you're naive enough to understand both are works of literature and have little or no bearing in history. I just wanted to show you other narratives out there. But of course, because you're religiously and emotionally biased, Luke is to you a true gospel, while the book of Barnabas is not. So, for you it is about BELIEF and not about historical accuracy.

Did I hear you say unscholarly? You're very funny!. You're researching on the confines of christianity, so you have a closed mind. When I was a christian like you, I was also confined in my research and when people spoke from wider research, like I ironically do today, the ignorant me also considered them absurd and uninformed. When you come to light, you'll be astonished there's a whole lot of scholarship on christianity that has been kept away from you. So, I totally understand you can't see beyond what you've been given by the church as that would be heresy. You're a slave to the very scholarship!! And who gave it to you? The white man!!. Unfortunately, you've been deceived that doing so means being ''scholarly'' but you don't realize it actually takes you away from true ''scholarship'' which should be about research without limits, and should include research into Asian Gods, native Australian Gods, native American Gods, African Gods, the history of African Gods, and what our ancestors believed. Whoever gave you that ''scholarship'' has fooled you!. That's why the gospel of Barnabas is not gospel to you while those chosen for you by white people are, despite Rome and different popes, over the centuries, holding so many councils and issuing countless decrees to pick and choose which books are ''inspired'' and which are not. What a pity!. You don't even know there's a whole lot of ''scholarship'' outside of christianity about 75 ancients books removed as ''non canonical'' by Rome. It was only upon Rome's rejection of certain books that many more books didn't make it into your bible. Funny enough, if Rome chose the book of Barnabas, it would've been regarded today as correct gospel by you. On that note, I am no longer going to debate you because for you its about BELIEF, and belief doesn't require fact, history, science.

Now, lets shift this discussion to my main request which you continue to evade.

I never told you I approve of Luke or the book of Barnabas. I can't believe you're naive enough to understand both are works of literature and have little or no bearing in history. I just wanted to show you other narratives out there. But of course, because you're religiously and emotionally biased, Luke is to you a true gospel, while the book of Barnabas is not.
This is what I actually meant by unscholarly methods. You keep shifting the goal post whenever your argument is refuted. You used the gospel of Barnabas to prove your claim that Pilate never met Jesus and described Barnabas the way he was described by Luke. My simple job is to logically fault your position by showing reasons why your use of “Barnabas’ gospel” argument cannot work
1. It can be shown that it was not written by Barnabas (I gave about three points to buttress this)
2. Form 1 above, it was written even after the council of Nicaea that you subtly referred to. This means that it has no chance of being included because it was not available at that time. And FYI, there are complete manuscript of the entire new testament which predate the fourth century. So the Nicene council argument is just sheer desperation by biblioskeptics.

So, for you it is about BELIEF and not about historical accuracy.
I never know when I told you that I accepted Luke’s work over that of alleged Barnabas’ because of BELIEF. This is one of the reason I talked about being unscholarly. The contexts I used it FOR YOU were to show that you have refused to drop your errors in the face of evidence. This is easily shown by you always changing the goal post. I even went further to list your misinformation and inconsistencies to see if you can address them or accept your mistakes and retract them, you didn’t do any of it. This was why I think you are so attached to you “belief” that you can’t abandon them even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Did I hear you say unscholarly? You're very funny!. You're researching on the confines of christianity, so you have a closed mind.
You keep on dishing out claims as if you are omniscient. How would you know that my researching is within the confines of Christianity? This is another example of my accusation against you. It get worse that after making an outrageous claim, you go further to use it to buttress other unfounded points, thereby committing the question begging fallacy. No one is above mistakes, but I repeatedly pointed out the ones I can detect, yet you still make similar fallacy. It is unforgiveable

So, I totally understand you can't see beyond what you've been given by the church as that would be heresy. and You're a slave to the very scholarship!! And who gave it to you? The white man!!.(another one is) Unfortunately, you've been deceived that doing so means being ''scholarly'' but you don't realize it actually takes you away from true ''scholarship'' which should be about research without limits, and should include research into Asian Gods, native Australian Gods, native American Gods, African Gods, the history of African Gods, and what our ancestors believed. Whoever gave you that ''scholarship'' has fooled you!. (another one) That's why the gospel of Barnabas is not gospel to you while those chosen for you by white people are, despite Rome and different popes, over the centuries, holding so many councils and issuing countless decrees to pick and choose which books are ''inspired'' and which are not. What a pity!. You don't even know there's a whole lot of ''scholarship'' outside of christianity about 75 ancients books removed as ''non canonical'' by Rome.
Like I said already, you make an unprovable claim and most times, emotion take over as is seen in this comment above. Everything in bold commits either begging the question fallacy or question begging- epithet fallacy. You merely assumed your claims and built your arguments on them. Talk about being unscholarly. those in brackets are mine

It was only upon Rome's rejection of certain books that many more books didn't make it into your bible. Funny enough, if Rome chose the book of Barnabas, it would've been regarded today as correct gospel by you. On that note, I am no longer going to debate you because for you its about BELIEF, and belief doesn't require fact, history, science.
Like I said earlier, you Nicene council argument is of no substance BECAUSE the books that we have now are identical to a pre-Nicene manuscript. Nicene only did a form of regulation as many apocrypha were coming out and attributing the authorship to apostles. And virtually all of the 27 books were quoted in the writings of early church fathers with exception of few verses. So your gospel failed all logical test which I showed in my previous response and I also showed that you can’t have your cake and eat it. Why? If you relegate Luke to “Roman book” and you are still using it to prove your case, then you are not consistent. By the way, we will show that you are the one who is stuck with the BELIEF that the new testament is a Roman book

Now, lets shift this discussion to my main request which you continue to evade.
I just have to laugh
Why you keep modifying every refuted claim is what I don’t understand. Let me remind you how it started
Your very first claim was: “Rome never knew your Jesus”. I showed roman historians who referenced him, hence refuting such claim.

You defended it with the historians “never met him” argument. I gave example of a historical figure I knew you won’t doubt and explained that the historians who wrote about this subject wrote more than 100 years of his death. So if your argument will hold substance, then you should agree that such historical figure may not exist.

You still couldn’t give up and you came up with examples of other historical figures that my example met with. Then claimed that Jesus never met with any historical figure. Again I patiently told you that he met with Pontius Pilate which is an historical figure.

Refuted the third time, you brought the outrageous charge that I shouldn’t use a roman source. So funny. That was when I knew that you are just looking for desperate measures to prove that you shouldn’t be wrong. Why should I not use a roman source when we are talking about an event in Rome? Should I use Wole Soyinka or Chinua Achebe?

Then you tried to use a “gospel” to prove me wrong about your third argument. Again, you were shown that the material you brought failed all test for it to be used as a primary source for Jesus and I listed them. Instead of you to address the points or admit your error, you went emotional and was committing the question begging-epithet fallacy.

This is already long, so I will address the remaining as another response
So it should be clear to any reader who is deviating and trying desperately to hold on to his false claims

musicwriter:
The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.

Banabas wrote a book called the gospel of Banabas. In the gospel of Banabas, your Jesus never met Pontius Pilate neither was he crucified, instead Judas Iscariot was the one crucified. This's a none Roman source that they don't want you to know.

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Banabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

The gospel of Barnabas

The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.
I remember challenging you to prove this your outrageous claim that the Bible (new testament?) was produced by Rome. To show your inconsistencies, you claimed “Rome DISMISSED the Jesus story as nonsense” but then you later claimed that “it was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace …that they BEGAN FABRICATING THE BIBLE STORY" (emphasis are mine).
Question is now:
1. How could they fabricate that which they already dismissed?
2. How can you show that it was fabricated by Rome?
Again, your initial argument (before you started changing goal post) was that “Rome NEVER KNEW YOUR Jesus”, but after some time, you claimed that “Rome AND Jesus ARE ONE”. Your questions again would be:
1. How come you are one with something you don’t know?
2. Why are you so inconsistent with your claims?
Yet, you are accusing me that my problem is that I am hooked on a ‘story’ by Rome (question begging-epithet fallacy). Anyway let’s go on to see another inconsistency in a desperate measure to just hold on to your belief

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.
Now, according to one book as against the Biblical text and secular texts, you want us to place our faith on you who has been shown to be grossly inconsistent. My question would be:
How do you know Barnabas? You went on to explain who Barnabas is as described by the author of the book of Acts – Luke. Now, this book of Acts is in what? The new testament of the Bible who according to you was fabricated by Rome. Please, what is the color of your inconsistency again?

Like I said before, debating with someone who is not well informed on a subject is usually frustrating. This ‘gospel’ that was attributed to Barnabas has so much hurdle to cross for it to be authentic.
1. First, it is far removed from when the alleged author lived (between 400 – 1500 years)
2. It described some historical events that happened many centuries after the alleged author had died. An example is The 100-year jubilee which was declared in 14th century in Western Europe. How would a first century writer describe such thing. This has demolished his authorship of the so called gospel.
3. The gospels and other epistles taught about deity, death and resurrection of Christ while this who was with them is now teaching opposite.
4. Unlike the books of the new testament which were referenced as early as in first centuries and into the second century (as against the nonsense council of Nicaea that skeptics love to parrot which happened in the fourth century), this gospel was not referenced until after the fourth century. This add to the problems of it being authored by a revered Barnabas

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Barnabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

If it is shown already that it was not written by Barnabas, then you just built your argument on a house of cards again and it has been shown. Again, many writers wrote ‘epistles’ and ‘gospels’ using names of apostles after their death. Most of these were written in the second century and beyond. This clearly showed that the so called gospel is among such category, hence should be discarded as a primary source for the historical Jesus.

Sorry bro, you are debating a lost argument which is why you resort to unscholarly methods

musicwriter:
You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus? Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus. It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story.

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea. Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!. That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature. Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history.

You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus?
Debating wannabe anti-God (atheist) on NL is always fruitless as they mostly resort to misinformation in order to hold on to their weak life line. You said I should not give a Roman source when you clearly claimed that ROME didn’t know Jesus. I laugh in adjective. So, I should give an Egyptian source (or Chinese, lol) to prove that Rome knew Jesus. Your desperation is out of this world. I bow for it

Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?
This is what I say most times. When you debate with someone who is ill informed on the subject, this is the type of outrageous claim that one sees. Who gave me Jesus? And your answer is Rome? Please give me a break!! Then you started another set of misinformation.

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.
I don’t need to address all these outrageous false claims. I only challenge you to prove your case as my response would be too lengthy for those who may have time to read it.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.
Like I said before, you expect me not to use a Roman source since all your arguments (that Rome never knew Jesus, nobody in history met Jesus, and others) have been completely refuted to the glory of God. Now I should use who? Chima Amanda? Or a Korean source? Your desperation is really out of this world.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus.
Anyone following our debate would easily see your desperation since this claim has been demolished with my first response

It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story
Please give us reason to believe this your false misinformation. Bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea.
Yes, at least, you got something right this time

Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!.
Again, we are back to outrageous claims. Please bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)
Another desperate attempt to stay afloat. Your logical fallacy can make Buhari to be shocked. Person A and B met, it is easy for one to either say that Person A met with B or B met with A. it is a simple ‘Associative law’ in logic. So your logic is severely faulty and you should be ashamed that you resort to this type of fallacy just to stay afloat. Most smart kids would laugh at this not to talk of tertiary level (undergraduate or graduate) students.

That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature.
Like I said, this is just sheer desperation. The argument built around this your claim is a fallacy of begging the question. You tried to shove the "crucifixion of many jesuses" down our throat without proving it, then going on to say Pilate MAY HAVE met with any one of them. I laugh in Fulani

Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.
Nah! You are hooked on defending a lost argument since you are only committing a question-begging-epithet fallacy. Claiming that I am hooked on a story when you can’t even prove that it just a story than history.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.
You can’t just stop dishing out your lies. Please show us how this happened (using the criteria that you set up and that I explained above)

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. .
You don’t need to be changing goal post as it is already frustrating an objective and intellectual debate. This is clearly a fallacy. The funny thing is you seem to be exporting 21st century to event of 2000 years ago. That is, you seem to think that it is now that we have mass media so that event which happened in a place can be known all over the world.
Also, Coptic traditions says that Christianity was already spreading in mid first century. Though Jesus didn’t go to Egypt in his 3 years ministry, but his influence spread to Egypt after his death which is what he predicted and commanded.

Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history
Nah! Free yourself from anti Christianity sentiments since you couldn’t objectively build your case but resort to false claims and misinformation (lying?) and fallacies to hold on to your BELIEVE. What will you lose if your claims are wrong (as shown already that they are wrong)? Your ego that you can't be wrong or what? Or that you promised that you will become a believer in Christ if your initial claim was refuted? Don't worry, I won't hold you on the latter.

musicwriter:
Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great. Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.

King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him. How could Jesus have done all that's written in your bible and nobody, not even one person ever met him while he was alive? Or is it because Jesus is a myth? Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great.

Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great.
Lol
Must you bring up a straw man argument? How I reduced Jesus to Alexander the great because I want you to use same criteria for HISTORICITY for both is what I don’t get. If you can’t get a simple fact straight and resort to use of double standard, is that my fault?

Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?
Of course, you are right and I have maintained my defense for the historicity of Christ. You on the under hand have not been consistent as I showed in my previous response

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.
This is exactly what I just wrote. Your initial argument which was why I decided to expose your misinformation was that “Rome never knew your Jesus”. Now what you wrote above is different from your initial claim. What is the definition of consistency again

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.
King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him.
Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great

Even if you shift your argument to this new claim that “NOBODY IN HISTORY MET YOUR Jesus”, this is WRONG again. Pontius Pilate is an historical figure, a Roman Prefect who met Jesus. This is recorded in Josephus’ work. Also, a cylinder bearing his name and title has been found which agree with the gospel’s description and that of Josephus.
Again, at least, someone in history met Jesus. Your claim is demolished again. Let’s see what you have about this. And don’t come with the argument of writing after some years of subject’s death as I already showed that you’ll have to discard ALL historical figures

Let’s review your claims and misinformation again:
1. That Roman empire has been crucifying rebels for thousands of years before Jesus’ supposed time. (this is clearly an ignorance on history of crucifixion as they started it after about 400 years before it was first done by the Persians or Athenians according to other reports. And they did theirs less than 100 years before the birth of Christ.)
2. That there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (historicity of Jesus is well attested and evidence is overwhelming. The events surrounding him could be the bone of contention depending on one’s worldview)
3. That Rome never knew Jesus (which we have seen that Pontius Pilate met him, and he was referenced by two great Roman historians)
4. That thousands of “cristuses” were killed through crucifixion (we are yet to see evidence for this deliberate twist of history)
5. That nobody in history met Jesus (we just showed that Pontius Pilate who is a historical figure met Jesus)
And others that are one form of fallacy or the other.

You are defending a lost argument and that’s why you keep on shifting goal post, dishing out false claims and misinformation, coupled with using fallacies in order to keep up. Your advise is still there for you to consider

musicwriter:
I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece. But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.

Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Lol
Very funny and I am not surprised. After showing your logical inconsistencies, all you can say is that I should be ashamed of what I wrote without telling me WHY I should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed rather as I gave list of your misinformation and you really can’t do anything about it. Instead, you resort to emotional defense
How about you free your mind first since you were unable to show consistency in your argument as will be shown

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece
Here you claim that Alex is historical figure (which I don’t dispute) because people wrote about him in different places. But using your logic, we should not take their account serious because they never met him. What will you say about that? Who needs to free his mind now?
After all, you still said that “Luke never met your Jesus”. We can see the double standards now. You even when on to say that “he never even claimed to be an eye witness…” but I will ask same thing concerning those who wrote about Alexander. Were they eye witness? No! but you agreed that he was a historical figure.
I guess someone dished out an important advice that was meant for him

But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.
This is clearly were I am going to.
Your argument was that: “Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!” I gave examples of first century Historians in Roman empire who mentioned him in their works.
You came up with “they never met him” rebuttal. I responded that other historical figures are taken as authentic even when the first person to pen something down did after over 100 years of the subject’s death. So, not meeting the subject is clearly fallacious.
Then you seem to agree that figures like alexander was real because “several people wrote about him…”. But several people also wrote about Jesus; his disciples, their disciples, Roman Historians, etc.
Now you are moving to report of miracle. Why can’t you be consistent? Why do you seem to lock your mind?

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.
Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

You keep repeating this fallacy when you can’t defend your position. You can only use it if ALL historians met their subjects, especially, ancient historians.
Your double standard is noted, your misinformation is seen, your closed mindedness is revealed.
Your advice is clearly for you and I’m sending it back to you
“…if you eventually free your mind, you’ll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands”

J111333:
So people were killed now eekwa?
I thought the news of the killings was propaganda by PDP and Igbos?

The evil that men do because of stipends may render them useless even after reincarnation.

I know a man that a lot of people have severally helped to be useful to himself yet, nothing was working for him and to be fair, he worked hard then.

I was so worried that I said to him one day, go and have a rethink about his life. Don't meet a pastor, don't pray, just have a quiet time and think about your life.

He later told me in confidence that he once lied against an innocent man who suffered greatly for something he knew nothing about and guess what, the innocent man died in that suffering.

As soon as he told me this, I simply stopped every communication and the little help I was offering him to avoid partaking in his karma.

I pray it won't be too late for you and other folks like you here to make amends.

Emphasis on the last Paragraph.
It's painful that the future which we envisage may be frustrated because of folks that keep on denying obvious truth.
Those (paid?) E-warriors were almost confusing me with their online lies and propaganda, capitalizing on the violence of hoodlums and denying the massacre by the govt. It got worse with the death of that app developer. That was where I was almost giving up that they may have some element of truth. I had to personally analyze the wound on his neck, compared it with various STAB WOUNDS and BULLET WOUNDS. It definitely match bullet wounds as was initially reported. But what can I say siince the brother said he died by hoodlums? I gave up.
Now Buhari himself comes out to report death casualties which those e-warriors have been denying, yet they still hold on to their position. This is worse than religious dogmatism.
As you advised, I hope they change before it's too late

musicwriter:
Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.

However, this's what Cornelius said ''consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.''............... Cornelius Tacitus.

As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way. Christus was the alias of anybody who came forward as leader of the Jewish/Israeli movement against Roman occupation- the same thing Muslims today call MUJAHEDDIN- a holy warrior. All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.

Here's what Josephus supposedly said ''now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the gentiles. He was Christ and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.'' .............. Flavius Josephus.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.

However, Flavius Josephus was a Jew and a sell-out to Rome, who joined foreigners (Rome) to enslave his people. He was captured in Jerusalem by the Roman army and when they interrogated him they discovered he was educated. They took him to Rome to live under the king and used him as a Jewish insider to have him write something that can pacify his people. His name was formerly Josephus Bar Matias, but the Roman emperor, Flavian, who adopted him added ''Flavius'' to his name. Flavius is a name of a Roman dynasty not a Jewish name. That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.

Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.
At least, you’ve checked. Now we can discuss. By the way, I never asked you to help me on that. I only ask you to check what you seem not to know before.
Let’s proceed to see how you tried to twist and fallaciously interpret history in a desperate attempt to hold on to your believe that Jesus never existed or Rome don’t know who Jesus was.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.
I have to laugh when I read this statement. Give me a break! It seems you don’t know how history in antiquity were collected. Most works on ancient historical figures were written far from the events which they describe. Take Alexander the great as example, the primary sources we have for him were written by people removed from the events at least, by 100 years - historians, such as Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian. Now, I don’t believe that you would deny historicity of Alexander the Great. Then simply apply same to Jesus (I’m actually just faulting your logic that Jesus never existed and not proving he existed since there are tons of evidence for the latter).
Secondly, I’m not sure you would want to discard the works of Tacitus just because he mentioned Christ. That would mean that you have to prove your case to real scholars of history; which is simply impossible.
As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way.
All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.
Now, this is where you twist history. Can you please show me and the world where these are claimed with good scholarship (not just one biased anti Jesus writer)? Must you lie in order to hold on to your erroneous belief? Some Jewish rebels were crucified. Simple! That’s what history tells us but you want us to believe you that those were called cristus. SMH

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.
As shown above, you’ll have to discard all works on many historical figures with such argument.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.
Even if the first statement (which you quoted in your response) is being heavily contended and that it contains some ambitious Christian’s interpolation, it does not rule out the fact that he mentioned Christ as an historical figure.
Secondly, that what not his only reference to Jesus. Maybe you saw it and tried to ignore it or you didn’t know about it. In any case, here is what he said "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9
You may deal with that. FYI, this last quote has no contention among secular historians not to talk of conservative scholars.

That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.
Your las paragraph is another desperation to hold on to your sinking boat. We know that already about him but your argument of him being a sell out, hence “cannot be trusted” is a genetic fallacy.
Secondly, how does a translation of manuscript which decides to add foreign materials to the translated work makes the foreign material part of the original manuscript? Your desperation is out of this world. Maybe you should read about New Testament manuscript first to understand what I am saying. And like I advised earlier, you should be informed on a subject before diving into it. Also, a good knowledge of logic and fallacies may be helpful to you

So far, we have seen couple of misinformation
1. The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time
2. there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (you’ll have to discard history or show that Luke is inconsistent in any other form of history to be able to make this claim)
3. Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.
4. thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way
and others that I left because they were not stated categorically but can only be implied from what you said. For example, claiming that because an historian never met his subject (less than 30 years) then his work should not be taken seriously
All these are just desperate attempts to hold on to a fanciful wish that Jesus never existed

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

musicwriter:
Find your church members or dumb people you can pally with. Don't quote me without a historical backing to support that Rome knew your Jesus.

But I understand, the problem is that you church goer's don't know that history and your bible stories are in parallel. History is past events that actually happened, while your bible is mostly work of fiction.

Even elementary history tells you that Rome converted to christianity in 325 AD. That's 295 years that your Jesus (if he existed) was supposed to have died. 295 years gap!!. Before this period, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) and they persecuted the early christians. The punishment included feeding them to lions. Later, when they found it useful to use religion to control their ever spreading empire, they adopted christianity as a state religion. Rome never met your Jesus!!.

If you argue otherwise, get back to me with historical information that Rome indeed knew a living Jesus and I'll apologize to you, in fact, I'll convert to christianity if you can do that.

Just a simple response since, you seem to miss the part where I advise that you read the works of ROMAN HISTORIAN - TACITUS and Jewish and ROMAN CITIZEN- JOSEPHUS. (These guys wrote their works long before the 4th century that you wrote)
I believed that if you read about them and there reference to Jesus, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

musicwriter:
The bone and nail have nothing to do with any Jesus because there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus. Its mythology.

The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time because crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes. Rome used to crucify up to 500 rebels per day in Judea alone!.

In the book, Jesus never existed, the author Kenneth Humphreys, wrote ''at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great (bible) universal history.'' The bone and nail some of you adore here could actually have been that of a murderer!!.

Yet, among the thousands of crucified rebels and criminals, Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.

Stop this Jesus nonsense because you're making a fool of yourself.

The bone and nail have nothing to do with any Jesus[b] because there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus[/b]. Its mythology
This is a very serious claim. How can you prove this? You make this claim as if you are omniscient – you know ALL THINGS.

The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time because crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes. Rome used to crucify up to 500 rebels per day in Judea alone!.
Yes, the Romans crucified folks as a capital punishment but how come you miss the part that it was not thousands of years before AD.
If you can get a simple factual claim wrong, why should we trust you on any other unproven claim?

In the book, Jesus never existed, the author Kenneth Humphreys, wrote ''at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great (bible) universal history.'' The bone and nail some of you adore here could actually have been that of a murderer!!.
Very funny. I read your quote over an over again to see how it follows. I can only conclude that this is another example of non-sequitur
Again, if you read the article, it was not concluded that it MUST belong to Jesus; rather, someone else linked it to Jesus because of… (you should read the article to find that out). And as being shown already, many Christians reject the idea that it belongs to Christ; quoting the scripture which says ‘none of his bones shall be broken’

Yet, among the thousands of crucified rebels and criminals, Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.
Another blunder. Get informed on topics before you embarrass yourself. Read about Tacitus, Josephus and others. For the record, the two mentioned are regarded as great Roman historians. If you disagree, I won’t be surprised

Stop this Jesus nonsense because you're making a fool of yourself
Let me edit this since it looks like it was meant for you
Stop this (anti)Jesus nonsense because you're making a fool of yourself

KingDash:
it's for someone else, Jesus is not real.

Alright Mr. Omniscient
You know ALL THINGS, hence we should believe your claim

[quote author=BlackTrice post=95245625][/quote]What exactly do you call fairy tale?
How does the discovery of a nail used for crucifixion becomes a medium for “fools” to keep fairy tale going?

What is your definition of gullible and brainwashed Africans’?

This last paragraph indicates that you either did not read the article or you just want to embarrass yourself with sheer ignorance
First of all, what the researchers did is a show of intelligence. If it is assumed that the nail was for crucifixion, then it should have microscopic bone fragments; which is what they found
Secondly, did the article conclusively reported that it was for Jesus before you expose your ignorance?
Thirdly, even if it was for Jesus, then it should still be expected that there should be microscopic fragments on the nail while anyone should still be able to put their hand through the hole in his hand.

In desperate attempts to suppress God (truth), most folks seem not to use their God given talent of making informed and logical conclusions

omale88:
bro your link or who ever is behind it have their bias,it no problem of mine carbon dating is used to check the date of fossils of all living creatures dead on earth.

Wow!!!
This is the height of ...

omale88:
how is that my problem?

Well, I was trying to correct the notion that those Dino fossils are carbon dated.
They don't use radio carbon dating to assign age to them.

I felt you would read the link for nore clarification, but it seems that my assumption is wrong

omale88:
they use a means called carbon dating to get the approximate number of years,they just dont guess it as most of you think.

On the contrary, if they agree to carbon date Dino fossils, There would be problem among the scientific community. Also, any lab that does the dating may be in serious trouble of being labelled "enemy of science"
You may go through this link
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Macsjebs:
It's a similar one, they just used to buttress
photo has now been edited to include the caption for better explanation

Alright Boss

What I don't get yet is that does the last picture represent the picture of the "fossilized bones"? If yes, but we were told in the article that the skeleton is yet to be dug.
If it is yet to be dug, then how can they easily conclude that it is a "fossilized bone"? After all, there are unfossilized bones that have been found.
Everything must just sound old just to justify uniforimitarianism

Image123:
Are you sure you are literate. Did you read the OP at all? Or you compare what is said to 200billions years old tooth of an insect that you believe with glee?

Don't blame him. He wants to live in self deceit. The Bible described his like already
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things (atheistic/evolution science) rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Rom 1: 22 -25)

blessedchild234:
glad you raised some points concerning the biology of the mosquito, its quite informative to also observe that the study of space and galaxies has as well increased human understanding of her universe in a wider scope. However, in a futuristic perspective planets will surely be investigated with their mathematical equates which could lead to understanding of the black hole and her characteristics, who knows maybe another ground breaking discovery about our earth could surface and change something.
The universe is limitless so are its elements, therefore we are at the edge of massive paradigm shift in these decade in respect of what we are yet to discover or settle out for, time will tell these.

Of course, it is important that we study and try to understand everything around us as it will be helpful later, if not now. For example, Keppler's equation that describes the planetary orbits (demolishing Ptolemy's Geocentricity) has helped in mapping out how space rovers should be launched so as to be caught in heavenly bodies' gravity in order to orbit round them and and make observation about them. And of course, I didn't criticize Penrose' work since his theory fits the current observation made by the other two young scientists who shared the prize with him.

blessedchild234:
guy, that shii deserved it, if you dont understand the theorem try make your own research and watch channels as discovery channel et al to further your understanding. Peace out.

You obviously missed my point
1. The mosquito research was aimed at making life better. Not just the transmission of plasmodium that makes me angry, the fact that their bite causes itching and the annoying sound made by their wings when they come to bite is another thing. Contrast with a 1980s mathematical (not experimental) explanation for a black hole that has nothing to do with you and me
2. Due to the non experimental nature of the theories surrounding black hole, hypothesis keep coming and thus is prone to change, unlike this operational research that fulfils the testability, repeatability and observability criteria of (operational) science. If later, an hypothesis some how fit a certain observation, it has high tendency of being adopted. Yet, the one that would be dropped has won a Nobel prize.

Those are few of the reasons I made my previous comment. So it's not about watching "How the Universe Works" in Discovery Channel

Xmuslim:
If God is real, then I am actually a better person with a higher standard of morals than he is as a God'. I can't roast people in eternal hell.

Your god is not great. Snap out of delusion

If God is real, then I am actually a better person with a higher standard of morals than he is as a God'. I can't roast people in eternal hell.

You seem to be importing the characteristics of Allah in Islam to God of the Bible. That seem to me as a fallacy of equivocation. This is seen in your comment as thinking that God as revealed in the Bible (will be referred to as God in my statements) is same as Allah as revealed in the Islamic literatures who claimed that he created hell to be filled with humans and jins.
You talked of having a higher standard of morals. But who sets the standard? If it is you, why should I trust your standard?

Your god is not great
Your fanciful wish

Snap out of delusion
This begs the question of proving that God is not great in the first place

A very fascinating research with interesting result.
God bless them
These are the kind of research that I would love to award Nobel prize for, not the type that hypothetically explains what happens in Black Hole (which might be replaced in the nearest future)

joelala:
Of course not! and no freaking one has any concrete proof of how it all started, but one thing i know for sure, your God, the God of the bible is definitely not responsible for the creation. Your God was created by men. Your bible tells us how your God got scared and freaked out when some set of foolish folks embark on building a tower that'll shoot up to heaven so they can meet God....if your God was omnipotent and omniscient like he claim(or y'all claim) the "All knowing" and all that crap! he'll definitely know that move aint possible, but he got so scared and destroyed them with confused language. now ask yourself, don't we have astronauts that have gone up into the sky, explored the galaxy, even walked on the moon back in the days nd still of present? why haven't your God done anything to stop them? Like i said, continue to let that kiddies story book ( my book of bible story) control you even at an adult age. All you need is just take a moment to leave religious sentiments side and THINK logically and critically.

As usual of atheists, you’ve successfully set up a straw man so that you can ‘burn it’

Can you show me where it was stated in the bible that “God got scared and freaked out” because of the intention of those men?

Can you show me where it was written that they want to build “a tower that’ll shoot up to heaven so that they can meet God”?

These are the straw man argruments you set up. If this is not what the bible says, then your argument falls flat to the ground like a house of cards
I have a hunch that you would jump to another thing in the bible but before that, try and honestly answer the questions. And if you cannot, honestly admit your mistakes
Let me borrow and modify your words "All you need is just take a moment to leave religious sentiments [a]side and THINK logically and critically".

Fash20:
Let me ask a question whats your stance on evoultion. What do you think it explains perfectly and what are its shortcomings

Let me ask a question whats your stance on evoultion
I should explain my stance on evolution first.
It is a form of history. Why? History tell us what happens in the past. The authenticity of a historical materials depends on some criteria that are used in historical methods. Also, evolution tends to tell us what happens in the past. I differentiate it from operational science because its stories cannot be observed, repeated nor tested. Hence, it is historical science.
Secondly, Darwin’s origin of species is an interesting part of his life as some experts show. Being born into a church going family, he found it difficult to conceive the idea that God created life to suffer as he experienced that of some of his children. [the reason for his skepticism has been discussed in books such as; ‘why a loving God allows evil’ and so on]. His voyage to Galapagos island made him discover the adaptive abilities of animals to environmental pressure, hence giving rise to changes in there appearance and so on. With other observations, he concluded that life must have risen and diversify form natural cause instead of coming from God. Many naturalists of his time got what they were waiting for – a scientific argument for origin of life and folks like Charles Lyell, Ernst Haeckel and so on rode on Darwin’s publication, promoting is within the scientific circle.
Fast forward 250 years now, it has become the reigning paradigm since it has support of the consensus in which one’s career is on the line if you try to publish anything which challenges it. Funds and grants for research are threatened, academic tenures can end, one could even be fired if you challenge the theory in academia. These have been documented in peer-reviewed journals that are not controlled by evolutionists

What do you think it explains perfectly and what are its shortcomings
I will regard it as an alternative to supernatural creation, that is, a creation from chemicals to complex life and which diversified to all what we have and can see now. I won’t be able to say exactly what it explains as Darwin’s lack of knowledge of genetics made him believe that mutation + natural selection is the prime mover of evolution which explains how a paramecium could turn to a paramedic over millions of years. This will lead me to its short comings
1. Many Darwin’s contemporary refuted his theory with stronger scientific arguments. Louis Pasteur for example experimentally proved the law of BIOGENESIS. This itself has knocked evolution out before the match even start. Only life can begat life, non-life chemicals will never lead to life no matter the millions of years you allow them to do trial by error
2. Limited knowledge of genetics during Darwin's time made the theory to thrive. Now it is known that a sophisticated and large amount of information is stored in the DNA of cells. These ‘manual’ that describes how components of cells should function, how molecular machines should be built, what the machines should do. Where do these manuals come from?
3. Again, from the information problem. Complex organisms differ from simpler ones in amount of information. How did an organism add information to the existing in its genome so that it becomes complex than it used to be. For example, legless reptiles developing legs. Where did the information to produce legs come from? Evolutionist attempted gene duplication coupled with mutation but this can be likened to making extra copy of a page in a book to mean that new information has been added (even if the extra copy has deleted parts in it)
4. Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, Michael Behe coined a term he called irreducible complexity. He discovered that there are some biochemical pathways that must all be present for a structure to be functional. For lay folks like us, he used the mouse trap analogy where he explained that for it to work, the base, release mechanism, strike hammer and other parts must be present, else the mouse trap won’t catch anything. He gave different examples of such in organisms and though evolutionists attacked him, he defended his position with sound knowledge. This has now become a form of subject in which many more irreducible complex system are being discovered. E.g a biomimetics and Engineer explained that of the human knee and so on.
5. Evolution has failed to explain the origin of consciousness, morality in humans and other behavior that has no survival advantage
6. It can’t explain the origin of gender since asexual reproduction is more economical that sexual reproduction and thus, have a survival advantage.
7. Living structures shows tons of evidence of being designed (though from a biblical perspective, the fall led to degradation and hence, less optimal capacity of designed structures). But evolution want us to believe that it is not the case. Life came by chance and blind chemistry. Obeys laws that also came by chance and so on
Like the Lewontin’s quote that I used before, the idea is just to exclude an intelligent cause which points to creator God, hence, a material cause is invoked even when it goes against common sense. Unfortunately, it has become a form of religion that cannot be challenged and is forced down people’s throat with statements such as ‘the evidence is overwhelming’, ‘anyone who does not accept evolution is retarded’ and it is promoted as if it is sound science like medicine, physics or chemistry.

Fash20:
You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".

I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.

You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".
Of course, I know that evolution does not add to complexity but the mechanisms that are trumpeted for evolution can only lead to degradation (as shown in the loss of digit of the Dino in the article). This is what is being observed
I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.
Sure, you are right but my claim is not about his qualification, it was about lack of proof

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.
Saying it does not make it true. They are called ‘just -so-stories’. The cosmic evolution hypothesis is fatally flawed and honest scientist know with some of their honest admissions sometimes as shown

In 1988, physicist James Trefil stated in his book The Dark Side of the Universe, "There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. . . . [it] is one of the thorniest problems in cosmology. . . . It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."

John Horgan, a senior staff writer for Scientific American, noted that one of the big questions unanswered by the big bang theory is "How and when did galaxies form?"

In 1998 the scientists at NASA admitted "We have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed [or] how galaxies evolved, whether they were formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivisions of large ones."

Another Physicist, Prof John Harnet said:
The universe is, by definition, the planets, stars, and galaxies that surround us. Insofar as big-bang theory does not explain the origin of these objects, then we can say that big-bang theory does not even address the question of the origin of the universe. It does not even get to first base. Big-bang theory produces, at best (given the benefit of every doubt), an expanding mass of gas. It does not produce even one solar system, let alone a whole galaxy of billions of solar systems.

Professor Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics: "We don't understand star formation at a fundamental level."
The stories are being promoted by media but Scientists know that it is not the case

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.
Again, that is another claim but it is known to be false deep within many scientists as evidence on evidence keep shredding the theory into pieces.
The theory is held on due to commitment to MATERIALISM. See Professor of Biology, Richard Lewontin’s quote
[center]‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
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.[/center]
Though, he equated science with evolution which is a fallacy of equivocation, but it is clear that there is a bias which will never allow any other theory that is not committed to materialism.

FunFact:
but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.
It appears you have not studied much about evolution either. Evolution takes place over a VERY long time thousands if not millions for larger beings like us. Except you could exceptionally live for a million years else you wouldn't really observe evolution happen with us.
But then again it does happen everyday. People of the Turkanna people of east africa have totally adapted to a diet that has milk in it (they digest lactose well). Other nearby tribes are lactose intolerant and they can't live on the same diet as the Turkanna. I think that the estimates are that for a human population to adapt to a diet containing lactose, you need about 3000 years for this genetic ability to dominate a population. In the Turkanna, their life is spent so close to the edge of survival, that anyone that was lactose intolerant would simply die. The evolution of a gene like "adult ability to digest lactose" should be able to happen in a very short period of time if the choice is "digest lactose" or die from lack of calories.

Evolution also quickly happens in things that live the shortest lives and reproduce hyper fast. Bacteria have adapted (evolved) to cope with our anti-biotics so quickly, that you probably don't want to go to a hospital unless you would die if you stayed at home. It was amazing how effective some "very gross and poorly produced penacillin" was at killing infections when first introduced. Today many organism's just shrug off penacillin's effects like it wasn't there.

There are lots of cases of seeing evolution right before our eyes
Stick Insects Evolution -- Evolving before our eyes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515163836.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2Bsciencedaily%2B(Latest%2BScience%2BNews%2B--%2BScienceDaily)

7 species' evolution -- evolving before our eyes
http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=companion

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex
You're not entirely correct about this. I'll edit and explain why later.

The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)
There are tons of proof about this. Dogs are a diverged specie of wolves who followed humans, you can look it up. This wasn't a question it was more of a comparison, read my op where I made the statement and you would understand why I used it. Dogs make up different species just as apes make up different species, humans are apes by definition (tailless primate).

That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
Why are you stating completely incorrect facts? Why are you creating this false ideologies to defend your religion.

The Neanderthals were human but a different species. Your creation model story is nonsense. It states that only one man and woman were created (I have always wondered seeing as Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did the rest of humanity come from?)
Also, It is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for just 2 individuals belonging to a complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing animal species to give rise to, and maintain a genetically healthy population consisting of billions of descendants without eventually going extinct caused by detrimental inbreeding.

Neanderthals also have DNA distinct from modem humans, so we are not the same tribe.
People of European descent have around 2% Neanderthal DNA indicating that they interbred with them at some point.

Hundreds of Neanderthal skeletons have now been recovered since the first discovery in Belgium in 1829. They range from Spain to Belgium, Germany and across to south-west Asia and all existed before about 50,000 years ago.
50,000 years is a long time. Any story's about them would have been forgotten way before the bible was written. The writers of the bible had zero knowledge about their existence.
Neanderthal skulls are easily identified from those of modern humans because of the low forehead, protruding brow, non-projecting jaw, large nasal cavity and pronounced occipital bun at the back of the head. Neanderthals were shorter but immensely strong in comparison to modern humans, and had great muscle mass and thick bones.

According to the bible, the tribes who created these stories were from the middle east. If we were descended from ‘Adam and Eve’, everyone would have Middle Eastern DNA - but we don’t.

If you believe the biblical time line, Adam and Eve were created ‘ about 5000–10,000 years ago, depending on how you interpret it.
Aborigines have been in Australia for 65,000 years.
Humans have been on Earth for more than 350,000 years.
Our ancestors for millions of years before that.
The tribes that invented the Adam and Eve myth didn’t even exist until around 900–1100 BCE.

It appears you have not studied much about evolution either. Evolution takes place over a VERY long time thousands if not millions for larger beings like us. Except you could exceptionally live for a million years else you wouldn't really observe evolution happen with us.
But then again it does happen everyday
Well, that has been the claim. “We can’t observe it” but “it is happening before our eyes”. It is a fallacy of equivocation to equate adaptation or sorting of gene within the gene poop with evolution (increasing complexity).

People of the Turkanna people of east africa have totally adapted to a diet that has milk in it (they digest lactose well). Other nearby tribes are lactose intolerant and they can't live on the same diet as the Turkanna. I think that the estimates are that for a human population to adapt to a diet containing lactose, you need about 3000 years for this genetic ability to dominate a population. In the Turkanna, their life is spent so close to the edge of survival, that anyone that was lactose intolerant would simply die. The evolution of a gene like "adult ability to digest lactose" should be able to happen in a very short period of time if the choice is "digest lactose" or die from lack of calories.

Evolution also quickly happens in things that live the shortest lives and reproduce hyper fast. Bacteria have adapted (evolved) to cope with our anti-biotics so quickly, that you probably don't want to go to a hospital unless you would die if you stayed at home. It was amazing how effective some "very gross and poorly produced penacillin" was at killing infections when first introduced. Today many organism's just shrug off penacillin's effects like it wasn't there.

There are lots of cases of seeing evolution right before our eyes
The examples you gave are simply categorized into any or all of the above mentioned mechanisms. And it is important to note that NONE OF THOSE MECHANISMS CAN INCREASE THE INFORMATION CONTENT WHICH WILL LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FUNTIONAL STRUCTURES THEREBY, INCREASING COMPLEXITY.
This is what we expect to see – INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION CONTENT present in the genome of an organism. This is what definitely distinguishes an organism from another which is higher in complexity

You're not entirely correct about this. I'll edit and explain why later.
You seem not to show me where I made error by claiming that I am not entirely correct

There are tons of proof about this. Dogs are a diverged specie of wolves who followed humans, you can look it up. This wasn't a question it was more of a comparison, read my op where I made the statement and you would understand why I used it. Dogs make up different species just as apes make up different species, humans are apes by definition (tailless primate).
It still begs the question. Who was there to know that they followed humans? I can agree that they diverged from what is called ‘wolf kind’ in creationist circle. And not just dogs, but coyotes, dingo and others of the canine family.
I said that the question is a false analogy because German Shepherd are dogs but man and apes are distinct (even with the 98% DNA comparison, while ignoring the difference which has been shown to reduce the number to about +/- 86%) and it is only the initial assumption that would make one believe that humans and apes are tailless primate

Why are you stating completely incorrect facts? Why are you creating this false ideologies to defend your religion.
You must have skipped the word ‘LIKELY’ in my statement. Then, you have you read the book which I mentioned? It was reviewed here https://creation.com/the-neanderthals-rediscovered-review and the evidence used in the book were just interpreted from through a creation/fall model. After all, evidence don’t interpret themselves, humans do interpret through whatever worldview he agrees with.


Neanderthals also have DNA distinct from modem humans, so we are not the same tribe.
People of European descent have around 2% Neanderthal DNA indicating that they interbred with them at some point...
It’s good that you said they are human. But we need to define what a specie is. In creation model, we don’t call it specie, rather, created kind it is defined as organisms (say A and B) which can breed together to produce offspring (definitely, A and A are same species and so is B and B). Also, if A and B can breed with C independently, they are all created kinds. But even if two organisms don’t breed to produce offspring, it can’t be ruled out since we have couples that don’t produce but we can’t call them different species. So I never claimed that we are of the same TRIBE, I only said that they were humans just as we are

The Neanderthals were human but a different species. Your creation model story is nonsense. It states that only one man and woman were created (I have always wondered seeing as Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did the rest of humanity come from?)
Also, It is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for just 2 individuals belonging to a complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing animal species to give rise to, and maintain a genetically healthy population consisting of billions of descendants without eventually going extinct caused by detrimental inbreeding.
You said it is nonsense without even knowing what it says. But ignorance is not an excuse. You didn’t read where it says Adam “begot sons and daughters” [Genesis 5:3-4]
Again, your theory is flawed because it is ignorant of the creation model. When God said his creation was GOOD, it means there was no death nor disease of any kind hence without any form of degradation. The fall according to the Bible brought all those and when it was not safe for inbreeding (marriage of close relatives). And a simple calculation (even putting death caused by many factors such as war, famine, disease, etec) agrees that with just 2 healthy couples, we can arrive at our present population in about 7,000 years since Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years, while from Adam to present population will give a average of doubling rate every 33 years (putting the factors I mentioned above into consideration)

According to the bible, the tribes who created these stories were from the middle east. If we were descended from ‘Adam and Eve’, everyone would have Middle Eastern DNA - but we don’t.
The figure attached should answer your skepticism. The three mDNA perfectly agrees with what the Bible says about the sons of Noah which is what we expect after population bottle neck of the flood.

If you believe the biblical time line, Adam and Eve were created ‘ about 5000–10,000 years ago, depending on how you interpret it.
Aborigines have been in Australia for 65,000 years.
Humans have been on Earth for more than 350,000 years.
Our ancestors for millions of years before that.
The tribes that invented the Adam and Eve myth didn’t even exist until around 900–1100 BCE.
I have no problem with the dates as Scientists in creation circle have explained the anomalies for getting older dates using real observations

[center]Several factors indicate the 14C clock is unreliable. Firstly, different species of plants take up 14C at different rates, and this (if at all possible) has to be corrected for.15 Secondly, the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has not remained constant; for instance, in recent history the industrial revolution and also atomic testing has changed the ratio. The earth’s magnetic field has not remained constant, and this affects the carbon-12 to carbon-14 ratio by changing the number of cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere. The cosmic rays displace neutrons and it is these energetic neutrons which convert nitrogen into carbon-14. 12C ‘contamination’ can arise from volcanic carbon dioxide which alters the carbon ratio in the wood of trees growing in the area of a volcano, making the wood appear older. The end of the Ice Age also affected the atmospheric ratio of carbon due to the release of carbon from cycling of fresh water with saline.16 And lastly, the Flood drastically changed the carbon ratio by burying unquantifiable amounts of 12C in vegetation, thus giving an inflated age to any sample tested[/center]
Even if 'molecular clocks' were used, it has been shown that the calibration is still done with the uniformitarian assumption of deep time. And they explained that:
...the methods have multiple problems: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous (similar) sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. And finally, the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, which assumes mutations occur in the so-called junk DNA. However, recent discoveries undermine the idea of pervasive junk DNA, thus negating its foundational premise.

The article Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines shows that when measured rates of genetic change are applied, ‘molecular clocks’ yield ages consistent with the biblical timescale. The article concludes, “A straightforward empirical approach constricted to analyses within a single taxa, typically yields dates of not more than about 5,000 to 10,000 years. Thus, when the hypothetical evolutionary constraints are removed, and the data is analyzed empirically, biblical timelines are achieved.”
https://creation.com/dna-research-australian-aborigines-50000-years-ago
You can read the whole article and see the references quoted for yourself

FunFact:
You're either ignorant about how evolution works or you’re just dumb as hell... Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos. Going even further back, a“ common ancestor”of gorillas and then further back a “common ancestor” of orangutans. Meaning, at some point in the very distant past, there was a species of ape that no longer exists and, eventually, all extant species of ape, including humans, evolved from that species. The other species of apes that currently exist are not our ancestors; instead, they are more like our cousins.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

What you said is just like saying “Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”or “ since I came from my grandfather , why do my cousins exist?”.

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
I’m sure the gorilla is better equipped to survive in the jungle than we are. Your statement is like a gorilla saying: “Why havent’t these humans evolved to be strong and brutal like me”.

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?

Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?

Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?

Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?

Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos.
You are right that he misrepresented the evolutionary story of one ape (say gorilla, turning to human) but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex

“Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”
The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
Begging the question yet. This assumes that humans share a common ancestor with some of those apes and can not be proven. The questions you asked later were good but MUST NOT ONLY be interpreted as shared ancestry. The problem is that the alternative is dismissed

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.
That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
So it is the evolutionary propaganda that believed that they were not humans but studies is turning that believe upside down

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?
Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?
Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?
Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?
All these questions have a simple answer from a Biblical believer point of view. God is the creator who creates however he wish. Using analogy of a Designer, he can produced different stuff with almost the same materials. The difference between the stuff could be accounted for with the amount of materials used and the amount of ‘foreign’ materials used.
A common designer for a military chopper and fighter jet could use same materials for the production of these two products. In fact, he could produce variants of chopper and variants of fighter jet so that one fighter jet is enhanced than another, though, they were produced with same materials and run on almost the same software.

Fash20:
Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming

Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.
Everything is being interpreted as evolution, So, the theory seems unfalsifiable. Like I said, we need to avoid the fallacy of equivocation by calling changes observed in any life form as evolution. What evolutionists want us to believe is that organisms increase in complexity (for example; from fish to fisherman- through intermediates) even against all what is known in different field of operational science (theory of information, Biochemical irreducible complexity, etc). So 'devolution' where organisms loose structure should not be hyped as example of evolution.
Also, the bolded is another example of just-so-story that we get from evolutionist. Who was there to witness such event? Because a Ph.D Scientist has said that does not mean that he can't be challenged especially if it can't be observed.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming
If you are able to see evolution as a historical science and not 'hardcore' operational science, you should not just doubt it, but also to see that it is full of inconsistencies due to its commitment - MATERIALISM.
The bolded is the national anthem that we here everyday, committing the fallacy of question begging. Where is the evidence (that overcomes all scientific hurdles of biogenisis, information theory, irreducible complexity and so on) before we talk of it being overwhelming

GidiCars:
You don't have to be a creationist to see through the BS of all these nonsense. There are atheist that don't think the big bang ever happend. Down here, ignorant people call you ignorant cause you don't agree that the big bang happened. This post on reddit captures the whole picture.

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia, the following are some examples of contradictions in science.

(1) Ultimate free lunch in the Big Bang model.

We suspend the law of conservation of energy in a closed system of our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing and “big bang” to what it is today. Absolute nothing means that there was not even space and time, and matter—-not even laws of physics as you need space and time to write the equation and invoke the invariance.

(2) The age of the moon and its moving away from the earth.

As another example of a contradiction in different disciplines of science, let’s consider the measured age of the moon and the rate of lunar recession.

According to high-precision uranium-lead dating of Apollo 14 zircon fragments collected from the moon, geologists have determined that the age of the moon is 4.51 billion years. (see Early formation of the Moon 4.51 billion years ago

).

But this age is in contradiction from the analysis of lunar recession according to the extrapolate-back-in-time paradigm of Big Bang cosmology.

Friedman’s solution to Einstein’s field equations of general relativity is a classical deterministic system. Being a deterministic system, the solution is invariant to the direction of time. Since our universe is observed to be expanding at the present age, if you wind back the clock, it must have been extremely small and our universe is said to be the result of the “Big Bang” from that singularity.

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment finds that the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year (see Calculation of lunar orbit anomaly

) at the current distance of 384,402 km from the earth,

Using the same extrapolate-back-in time paradigm, if the moon is moving away from the earth, it must have been closer to the earth in the past.

Now if you analyze the tidal forces, angular momentum and so on, you will find that the rate of change of the distance r

to the earth is a deterministic differential equation:

drdt=αr112.

Here, α

is a constant that is based on the combination of the mass of the earth, the radius of the earth, the mass of the moon, the universal gravitational constant, and so on.

We can use the 3.82 cm per year (3.82 ×10−5
km per year) and the current distance of 384,402 km to calibrate the constant α and find that it is 1.99 ×1026.

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?

(3) Survival of blood and soft tissues in 68-million-year-old dinosaurs.

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.

(4) Epoch-dependent science versus Epoch-independent science

Notice that common in these contradictions is the distant past. They are epoch-dependent. By definition of repeatability, science ought to be epoch-independent. Examples of epoch-independent science include synthetic chemistry, nano-materials, computer science, and so on. In these disciplines, you don’t look at the past or the origins. You don’t need uniformitarianism or other philosophical lenses.

What happened in the historical past could not be observed directly. You need the hypotheses to extrapolate from observations of this age to eons ago. We know that to draw a line, you need at least two points. We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work. Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contradictions-in-science?share=1

https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia...
Unfortunately, the “publish or perish” persecution that many scientists face in the academia. You have people that are denied of their tenure, papers are refused to be published, funding are stopped the moment you try to challenge cosmic and biological evolution

...our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing...
That is the greatest nonsense that have been swallowed by the general public. NOTHING exploded. Someone even made it sound more annoying by summarizing it as “nothing exploded and produced hydrogen…”

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!
That is another instance of how historical science (cosmology in this case) fails when confronted with real science

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?
This is how intelligent folks ridicule themselves because of ‘faith’ in materialism. Plate tectonics in a molten earth; very funny of them

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.
The funny thing is that her discovery has now made her an authority in field of Paleobiology. She received so many backlash but was able to stand by her results, though trying to interpret it from evolutionary lens so as to ‘appease the gods’.
Whenever such discovery is made, they resort to claiming that it must have been contaminated. That is a very nonsense approach to science. If ruling paradigm are protected at all cost (including stupidity), how will it advance?

We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work
This last one is where my wannabe science guys in NL do amuse me. They fail to differentiate operational science which fulfils the scientific method from historical science that is more or less just-so-stories.

Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?
These questions are just there and makes life difficult for honest scientists.

Doff my hat for you

Fash20:
Evolution does not lead to addition of structure (i.e it doesn't go back to the drawing board)? It only modifies the existing one to suit a purpose.

Very good, but it was claimed that evolution does not have purpose
Secondly, just ordinary modification would not change one structure to another (say; scale to feather) as they would want us to believe
Also, the general theory of evolution wants us to believe that all what we see now started from chemicals that came together and formed the first unicellular life which now gradually added structures (allegedly through modification). These are fanciful wishes as what is observed is what one can call 'devolution' - loosing structures

Realist1:
Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old not 3.5billion .The earth is about thesame age as the Sun. The earth is a spin off of the Sun.It literally cut off the Sun like the other 7 planets revolving around the Sun .

All these funny cosmological hypothesis that does not have place in real science.
Dust collapsing in a constantly expanding matter (universe)
Nebula hypothesis producing our solar system, yet Venus move in a direction opposite that of other planet
Assigning age to them arbitrarily is not a full proof that it is like that

Fash20:
The ancestors of humans and mammal in general were like rats they lived in borrows. It was due to the extinction of the dinosaurs we are here today.

Really?
Did you see where it was said in the article that the dino (must have) lost one of its digit. That is what is been observed - loss of structure; not the gradual addition of structure that evolution evangelists want us to believe.