₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
Viaro is definitely the worst offender lol.

Hello Jesoul, if you say so. Bless you.

Proliferation of churches does not have to be a problem. I'm sure some Christians here are a part of that problem while complaining about what others are doing. If only the Catholic denomination was to be in a town, how many here would be found worshipping with Catholics? Each one of us prefers our own denominations - but as with human frailty, we often think that this problem of proliferation is to be blamed on others, not our own. Sad.

nuclearboy:
Trinity I believe means three Gods in the GodHead.

You're confusing Trinity for Tritheism.

^^^ Haha! Now that is really rib-cracking!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=367385.msg5127265#msg5127265 date=1260985478]I couldn't agree more. . . Infact I think i'm the most misunderstood person here.[/quote]Oh my goodness! "They misunderestimated me" - another bushism!

Krayola:
That ^^ is not a critique of your views, just my opinion on a statement u made.

I understand. Laterz then.

Lol, I'll try not to summersault behind the monitor when you wind me up!

Krayola:
I just wanna know what u really think Viaro. I get a sense u think I'm trying to get u cornered and I'm honestly not trying to do any such thing.

But I think now I can say u're being evasive.

No, I'm not being evasive - although if my replies hitherto need clarification, I could oblige.

Krayola:
Ok. . .

What does "creation" mean to you? (biblical creation, literal or non-literal, or is there something I'm missing?)

Biblical creation.

Are u basically saying science, for you, does not/can not explain your origin?

No, that is not what I am saying. Let me break them into simple answers:

1. 'Does not' - what you put forward as 'explaining' my own origin may not be science; and therefore, it 'does not' offer any explanation for my origin.

2. 'Can not' - if someone just expects me to accept without question that my origin is 'explained' by what you put forward, I am willing to hear them out; until then, I hold no conclusions about whether or not it 'can' explain my origin.

I just want to be careful here so that you don't misunderstand me or where I'm coming from.

Now, if u just say you are not curious, or interested in knowing the origin of our species, that is fair enough.

Why would I then have been discussing thus far with you?

But when u say "creation" explains it for you, that sounds like faith, and that is religious.

Maybe, but are there no 'faith' statements made by evolutionists themselves? Not everyone would see the faith-statements of most evolutionists, so what is wrong with me stating what I believe?

So ,. . . I'm asking again . FOR YOU< is our origin as a species a religious issue?

No, it is not all a religious issue ALONE, nor is it all about evolution.

As I have said before, it all depends on what perspective anyone wants to discuss the subject. Not everything about our origin can be explained religiously or scientifically. . or even philosophically. And our origin cannot be fully explained merely by evolutionary assumptions. Why then would someone assume that it is either of the two positions in mutual exclusivity?

Krayola:
@ Viaro. So basically, for you, the origin of our species is a religious issue and not a biological/scientific one? Thus no need to reconcile? Am I mistaken?

No, not like that. The origin of species is considered in various contexts depending on who's looking at the subject. Some look at it from a religious perspective (like creation); others philosophically (like panspermia, etc.); others in one of the biological sciences, etc.

For me, the origin of man traces back to creation.

mavenbox:
^^^ Bring it on, viaro!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-367385.0.html#msg5126830  

Okay, mods. . my apologies. This might be sent to the Jokes board, do according to your wisdom.

Why Is Context Important?

If you don't understand a speaker, wars might break out. This was well illustrated when someone sent me a card that read like a screaming headline:

[center]"[size=14pt]Bush thanks you for witnessing his hanging![/size]"[/center]

You guessed it - my jaws dropped! What on earth could this prankster mean?

Sure enough, former President of the USA had warmly declared:

[center]'I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.'[/center]


His hanging? For real?  Yes, for real - what did you expect when a President speaks?

Well, after thanking us all, he survived the 'hanging'. If you haven't caught it up until now, George Bush was referring to the dedication of his portrait, Austin, Texas in January 4, 2002. There - he was thanking his guests for witnessing the 'hanging' of his portrait.

I shoulda known if I took the time to look at the bottom of the card which read in fine print: "It's called Bushism", hehe. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism .

Realtol:
@viaro pls could you answer my question?

Unfortunately, I'm not a Muslim and may not be able to answer your question satisfactorily. I would have thought that people should let others believe whatever they want to, without our deliberate attempt to ridicule what they believe.

That said, there's this Muslim friend I often chat with when a question about their faith comes up. This is what he sent me, unedited:

i've told you b4, dont suffer yourself about this if you dont gro brds. Reason why some of our ummah do it is due to certain texts both from Al-Qur'an and Hadeeth. Those who gro brds are living after the sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).


Al-Qur'an:

1. Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exempler for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day, and who remembers Allah - (Surah 33:21)

2. So take what the Messenger gives you, and refrain from what he prohibits you. - (Surah 59:7)

3. Say: "If ye do love Allah, Follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 3:31)

___________

Hadeeth:

Sahih Muslim, Book 2 (the Book of Purification), # 498:
Ibn Umar said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Trim closely the moustache, and let the beard grow. 

Sahih Muslim, Book 2 (the Book of Purification), # 500:
Ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be opon him) said: Act against the polytheists, trim closely the moustache and grow beard.

Does the above help?

[i]Edit[/i]_________________________________________
I just saw there's a thread about the same theme on Nairaland:
Why Do Muslim Men Wear Long Beards?

The OP only asked a question about sunnah and beards. What did we read in that OP that drags allah into all those unsavoury name-calling?

Atheists:
By smiting those who sowed the seeds of hatred ?

What?! Are you describing yourself in the highlight above?

^^^Gosh! You guys are such a crack! I'm recovering now from my bad day.

BTW, I'm looking forward to opening a thread for light-hearted chit-chats in the Religion Board. . nothing serious, just to laugh off some way-off kinda healthy jokes. What say you?

_{Hehehe. . you sad sob! If I had known you were winding me up with the 'dodger' thingy, I woulda killed you!! I've been having a bad day today because I had hoped to be called for extra work this morning. . . not the money, just the time to chat this damsel up. I lost! And you made things worse for me.}

Anyhow, throw the above off the cliff and let's talk, useless man!

Krayola:
Thank you for your response.  see? . . .that wasn't so hard. U DODGER!! 

I shall have my time. .  patience.

haha. Oya. . . I understand where u are coming from.

Just a few more questions

What do u make of all the fossil records?

I think fossils are an interesting bag of facts about the past - it all depends on how any professional, scientist or pseudoscientist wants to talk about them.

Paleontologists-- credible profession, or they just make stuff up?

Very credible profession, in my view.

. . . do the fossil records that suggest evolution (human-like bidepal big brained species, and their less "developed" alleged ancestors), in your opinion, mean nothing?

IMO, they do not mean nothing and cannot be swept away just like that.

For one, fossils are used to make a case for evolution by some, which is especially where the homonids connection with man come into play. Other evolutionists are not so condescending to make that same interpretation, but they understandably may not question evolution of man as such.

For me, these fossils still leave many gaps - and that is why they do not give me the confidence of tracing our present humanity to through the evolution of ape-like species to the present homo sapiens.

Why, in your opinion, is there such a high consensus in the scientific community around the TOE (one form or another), and how do u reconcile your beliefs with this?

^^^Very important question, and please endure my boredom on this.

1.  A high concensus does not mean that every scientist is inclined to every evolutionary argument (we both understand that, I suppose). Even so, if one takes into account that the definition of 'science' is constantly reviewed and updated, I can understand why the TOE is a scientific theory; and as such, I cannot argue against the rational of many scientists to be inclined to evolution.

2.  The TOE is not a religious argument; and that is what so many people forget when they propose arguments between evolution and creation. Science does not set out to make conclusive statements about religious or supernatural phenomena; and as a scientific theory, TOE was not formulated as a worldview. If TOE has left the domain of science to now argue religion, something is terribly wrong and TOE should consequently no longer be recognized as a science based pursuit.

3.  From the above, I don't try to reconcile between these two positions of TOE and spirituality, in as much as they are looking at the world differently. Indeed, some may use either of them to argue diametrically for and against certain ideas in human existence and experience, but that kind of strain does not make up everything about my faith.

U don't have to answer all, just state which one u don't want to answer and I will drop it.

Okay, thanks. . . but I still will 'murd' you for winding me up!

Krayola:
@ Viaro.  hahahah. next time a simple "Krayola, stfu", or "sharrapp!!" would have been just fine. .  I'm not worth all that trouble.

I don't care for all this getting caught up on technicalities.

I want to know how u, personally, account for human existence on this planet. If u wanna tell, please do, if not, never mind.  I find this merry go round kinda silly. But thats just me. thanks for your time.

I wasn't into technicalities, that was why my answers were simple and set according to your questions. How else did you envisage my answers to have been?

Anyhow, I was about responding to your previous post when you jotted the above. Ignore my answers below and don't take any notice of me if you feel it might bore you even more.

---

@Krayo, your other points:

Krayola:
Yawn. . . .  I mentioned "popped into existence" because I want to know where u think[b] homo-sapiens [/b]came from. I ain't no biologist and I don't care about all the technicalities. I've never gone that route with anyone. Infact the simpler the explanation the better it is for me (don't mean that in a crass way of course. .  ) .  I find the simper stuff more credible anyways. A lot of these so called "deep" conversations people have on Nairaland have little to no substance in my humble opinion/

There's nothing wrong with making a point, even at the risk of being misunderstood until clarifications are offered. Perhaps I missed your point about 'popped into existence', and I wanted to be clear that this discussion would not go down the road of mixing issues up - because those who are inclined to evolution tend often to argue far too many different things.

I'm asking where you think human beings as exist today came from, and not the origin of life.

There - thank you for being clear, and there's no need for the crass talk between us. I don't know where human beings as exist today came from; I only believe that human beings were created.

I ain't no philosophy expert and i'm not going to articulate my thoughts to meet your lofty standards. Where did our species come from? . . . are we related to other species, or do we go further back than the theory of evolution suggests.  . . Are we millions of years old?  Take time o. . .   I don't compare u to others, I try to treat u as an individual and with respect. Please don't bunch me up with anybody. .

Hehe. . this chap is funny.  Krayo, I try to respect individuals and treat them in their own world without trying to confuse personalities. Maybe I often fail there, and that is one of my weaknesses, which I pray could be excused.

As regards where our specie come from, I don't know, other than my believing we are a created order of beings.

Is 'man' therefore millions of years old? I really don't know; but I have personal reasons to believe that we are far older than our traditional interpretations of a 6,000 year history on earth. If in this regard there's a need for me to explain further, I most gladly welcome the opportunity to do so in context of how you would like me to approach that subject.

Fukc your charity. . .anwser the Kweshun    (btw i juss dey play o. . . .don't comeback with one long polite post apologizing for any misunderstanding. . .lol. . .just answer my kweshen. . u artful dodger )

As above - or was there something more than that which I failed to see?

Concrete?  Even if the evidence does not narrow it down to a point where u can say it is "concrete", do u think it, at least, points at something?

Yes, and definitely yes. This is not a hop-'n-hop scenario, so let me be clear.

Often when in discussion with others on these subjects, I have argued that TOE (theory of evolution) is a scientific theory by the standards of what the term 'scientific theory' is held to mean today among scientists. A theory doesn't have to be the truth; but it should have explanatory powers about a phenomena. Thus, in that sense, evolution as a scientific theory attempts to explain the 'origin' of species - even though that attempt to explain that subject may not be the absolute truth for every scientist in the field. To be sure that I'm not playing games here and have actually stated my view on this much earlier, please see the thread:  Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists, posts #341 and #344. There you could see what I think about a 'scientific theory' as an attempt to explain something, whether it turns out to be true or false.

So, if one enquires what I 'think' about species evolving, or about 'evolution', etc., I've often stated simply that I'm not a fan of Darwinism simply because that theory does not explain the origin of man.

Do species change over time?

I don't know.

Are we exempt from this?

Possibly.

why?

Because front and back of that question is one that is about life itself - where did life come from?

Pastor AIO:
That term 'artful dodger' seems to have hit a nerve. lol!

Yes, it did - especially as it comes from a friend who should have known better. That was why I had to 'rewind' and show the sequence of our dialogue before the joke gets out of hand.

Funny thing was that I was called that in school. 'Dodger'. I didn't find it offensive though.

Lol, there are other terms I've been called at various times that don't offend me. But having to repeatedly infer such terms seems out of place when the caller seems not to even understand himself in the first place.

Krayola:
@ Viaro. BTW I said nothing about Darwinism. I don't think Darwin has a monopoly on evolution.

I didn't infer that he did, and in one of my earliest statements about the thoughts behind evolution, there were a few names I mentioned before Darwin. When I refer to Darwinism, it is because I want readers to know what I've often stated: I'm no fan of Darwinism - and that is because almost all arguments that people make for evolution of any kind point back to the '-ism' of Darwinian evolution.

I mean evolution. . .the one most scientists believe is valid, though they disagree on details. There is some consensus that species have evolved over time

Which one exactly?

Do you disagree that modern humans are a product of this evolutionary process?

What evolutionary process? Please be clear. How does it differ from darwinism?

If u do, how do u explain our being here and similarities with the ape family, or others.

Indeed, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that we are a product of evolutionary process(es), especially the one you might have in mind. Putting that aside and just simply taking on the view of man evolving from organisms that were not human by any definition, I disagree. How so? Let me give explain:

There are indeed 'similarities' between many species today - no contest. But these 'similarities' do not prove anything about our human origins. The ape family (ie., hominoidea) reveal diversity, not conclusive similarity of our humanity with apes. One could make just about the same argument of similarities with any other specie of animals as the one between humans and apes - and the question that crosses my mind about these things is simply why evolutionists do not try to make the same connections other than the idea that we all have a 'common ancestry'. Man is uniquely complex in his class, as are all other species of living organisms.

Krayola,

I endeavour to deal with people's enquiry as they present them, not make postulations outside of what they present. I'm no magician to peep into your mind to know what exactly you want to know beyond what you present. If we're clear on that, what then is your comic about me being an artful dodger - on what? Or you don't understand the statements you make and have to be such a tard idiot to argue like a twerp? If you want to start insinuating crass in your way of presenting enquiries, then viaro will serve accordingly - I often make no apologies for my no-nonsense response even to friends.

Let me rewind:

1. You offered a question:
Viaro . . do u think species evolve? Do u think we share a common ancestor with chimps?
I answered simply that I don't 'think' whatever.
Now, if you wanted me to jump straight into explaining anything beyond that point, I was quite open to consider it - which was why I entertained your further enquiry:

2. Do you think Evolution explains how we got here?
My answer again was simple and to the point: 'Personally, I don't think evolution explains how we got here.'
If that was not sufficient, again I was happy to entertain further enquiries, even if you wanted me to explain. You don't even have a good grasp what you're mumbling about before insinuating that I was being an artful dodger - what do you want me to do? Make a Ph.D thesis elaborating on a simple question, no? Even so, I was again happy to entertain further enquiry:

3. U think Homo Sapiens just popped into existence, or have we been here the whole time?
And my answer: On the other hand, I don't think homo sapiens has been 'here' as long as 'the whole time'.
In each step of this scenario, my answers have been in point to your questions. You even went so far as to decline details or get into an argument, which was fine with me. It was a simple case of what viaro thinks/thought, and I answered accordingly. What then is all this sob story about being an artful dodger? If my answers were not addressing what you had asked, what would you do - call a funeral for your pedigree? What nonsense are you on about if you are damn too confused about what you're asking?


Now, do I answer your latest enquiry according to what you asked, or apart from what you asked? let me know, so I know if this is going to be one of those games to waste our time - I then could find time enough to play with you.

Atheists:
Instead of stopping genocide in Rwanda he is busy smiting people who mock him ?

How, in your exalted opinion, would God have stopped genocide?

Krayola:
Oya. . .start talking

>clears throat< Ti ringrazio.

Krayola:
hehe. very simple. Kai. . .all u people with your dodging tactics. Are u Jackie Chan?

I was not dodging anything. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. How does that amount to ducking anything? You wanted me to be complex and launch into an epistle to satisfy you initially?

U think Homo Sapiens just popped into existence, or have we been here the whole time? I won't ask u for details, I just want a general overview of what u think. . . I think I may have lots and lots and lots to learn from u.

My dear Krayo, this is where some of you fellows just amaze and amuse me all at once. If I were to begin to say anything about existence, several chaps of the evolution brigade will quickly scream that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis - and when others do what you're doing, you end up muddying the waters by the question of something popping into existence.

Does evolution explain how living organisms 'pop into existence'? No. Now if I'm going to be charitable, it therefore shows your question does not arise, thus I take it as humourously showing that you don't seem to have a good grasp of what you want to enquire.

On the other hand, I don't think homo sapiens has been 'here' as long as 'the whole time'. That is, 'we' (as humans) have not been here 'the whole time', whatever that time may mean. Yet, I don't have any concrete reason to suppose that homo sapiens is a product of Darwinism.

If I didn't want to answer, you would not have read the previous response - that was an answer, and all you had to do was ask for further gist.

Krayola:
Do you think Evolution explains how we got here? I'm not trying to argue with you. . . I don't care if it's water tight or not. . just wanna know what u think

Personally, I don't think evolution explains how we got here.

^^^I do not 'think' whatever. People are free to 'think' this and that and argue all day long: even so, no single argument is water-tight either way as to be the most accurate presentation of 'truth'.

Nothing wrong with reposting devotionals, especially when there is a thread for you to do so. One would have hoped that you would discuss the topic of this thread, but no - when you fail to show evidence for your assertions, the usual thing is to resort to devotionals complaining about 'evolution' when the thread is not even about that.

OLAADEGBU:
What a picture it draws of modern evolutionary humanism in practice!

This is why I said earlier:

viaro: Everything about AiG and HMM must by about 'evolution' if it does not square with their YEC/YUC

viaro: Up until now you have never ever attempted discussing anything, other than either quote devotionals from HMM or AiG, or . . .

OLAADEGBU:
This is an example of how the Bible is fresher than tomorrow's newspapers.  See how it predicted that scoffers that we now see here attacking the Word of God will be behaving true to their type. Brethren, be vigilant for the last days are now here.

^^^more lies.    The Bible prophesied about folks like you who would come from within the Christian Church to tell beautiful lies that God never commissioned you to do - read Acts 20:30. When people point out the unclothed lies you tell, you whine all day that they are attacking the Word of God, as if OLAADEGBU's lies have suddenly become God's Word.

It reveals that scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth.

That describes you - even when facts are presented, your willfulness to be ignorant of the evidence is astonishing! Where did God ever tell you that atom is invisible, OLAADEGBU?

They would also be ignorant of the Flood.

This is a laugh - to be 'ignorant' of something is to be unaware of it. If you want to make anyone aware about the Flood, it is not be telling beautiful lies of YEC that you do that job.

These two great events must be considered before making statements about the conditions on earth today.  Only about 3% of the earth today is habitable for man.

You obviously did not consider what you were yapping about before making unfounded statements about the earth today. The '3% of habitable earth'  is another one of those beautiful lies from LivingWaters/Way of the Master - how did they do their science to come to that conclusion?

The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc,.  If the earth before the Flood were, say 70% habitable, it could have supported a huge population.  The vast amount and worldwide distribution of fossils shows that the Flood was global and that God hates sin enough to judge the entire world.

God hates sin - including the sin of YEC duplicity. We can be thankful for the fact you know about it, even if you're willingly ignorant of it.

ogajim:
Abraham paid 10% tithe to the king of Salem from the spoils of war and not from his own personal wealth.

What do you call someone who behaves like that - take something belonging to someone else and use it as your own?

[list]
[li]The Bible states that Air has weight (Job 28:25).  Science then said that air was weightless.  Science now says that air has weight.[/li][/list]

Where did "science" make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Ecclessiastes 1:6).  Science then said that winds blew straight.  Science now confirm the Bible by saying winds blow in cyclones.[/li][/list]

Where did "science" make such a claim, sir?

[list][li]The Bible reveals that blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).  Science then was convinced that sick people must be bled.  Science now agrees that blood is the source of life and health.[/li][/list]

Please don't try to gull your audience. The Bible speaks of women bleeding - such as in their menses. That was not claimed in Leviticus as 'science'; and yet, it is the same Bible that teaches us that the menses of a woman are "her sickness" (Lev. 20:18). What do you think would happen if a healthy woman never had her menses? Huh? Besides, science shows us that in emergency first-aids situations like treatment of a snake bite, when no antivenin is available, the patience bad blood can be sucked out and a tourniquet applied around or near the bite. What are you babbling about?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Sam.22:16; Jonah 2:6).  Science then claimed that ocean floor was flat.  Modern science now confirm that ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.[/li][/list]

Where did science make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean contain springs (Job 38:16).  Science then said ocean fed only by rivers and rain.  Science now admits that ocean contains springs.[/li][/list]

Where again did science make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).  Science then said hands must be washed in still water.  Science now says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.[/li][/list]

"Science" never made such a claim - please show where it did, thank you.

With all these facts you will think that scoffers would have learnt a lesson or two and realise that the Bible is not only far ahead of modern science but is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.

The reason why scoffers are multiplied is because TRADITIONALISTS tell beautiful lies to make their dogma sound 'scientific'. The Bible was not given as a science journal, and if traditionalists like you can understand that simple message, you will not need a global flood of lies to trouble Everest - ever again!

[list]
[li]The Bible maintained that there were innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).  Science then insisted that they were only 1,100 stars.  Now they admit that there are innumerable stars. [/li]
[/list]

Science never insisted anything of the sort - what you should be saying is that some 'scientists' possibly once thought the stars were far less than we know today; and among these were some religious people. It would shock you what some of them taught about the stars: was it not in Christianity that religious people once thought that stars would start falling upon the earth after reading Revelation 8:10? They forgot that Revelation is a book speaking symbolically - OLAADEGBU, you can add that to the literalism of your YEC/YUC career!

[list]
[li]The Bible described the Free float of earth in space (Job 26:27).[/li][/list]

Do you have a Bible where Job 26 is more than 14 verses? I can't find verse 27 in that chapter of Job.    But I can help you: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" - verse 7 it is.

[list][li]Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal.  Science now has discovered the free float of earth in space.[/li][/list]

Don't be silly! Please show me where "science" ever said so.

[list][li]The Bible declared that Creation was made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).  Science then was ignorant on the subject.  Science now agrees that Creation is made of invisible elements (atoms).[/li][/list]

Dunce! Atoms are not "invible", and it is modern science that has enabled us to capture them in pictures. Enjoy:

                [center][img]http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/th-harmonische.jpg[/img]
                  Subatomic structures are visible within single tungsten atoms.

                https://media.nowpublic.net/images//9c/f/9cfd5ffa6e58bf98785e83755de80b65.jpg       

                IBM Fellow Don Eigler is the first to controllably manipulate individual atoms
                on a surface, using the STM to spell out "I-B-M" by positioning 35 xenon atoms,

                [img]http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/th-afm-image-graphite.jpg[/img]
                Revealing the hidden atom in graphite with AFM showing all atoms
                within the hexagonal graphite unit cells[/center]

You should always carefully do a check before you open your mouth and confirm the gap in your thinking.  Besides, an atom was once thought to be one of the elementary particles - but no more: science has now brought us to see that there are other particles that could be more appropraitely called elementary particles: the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, to name a few. Even an elctron has today been captured on picture:

              [center]  https://www.whatsnextnetwork.com/technology/media/electron.jpg[/center]

So, OLAADEGBU, where have you been in this Universe and making assertions of 'traditionalists' that have become nothing more than museum artifacts??

[list]
[li]The Bible says each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).  Science then claimed that all stars were the same.  Science now has come to the conclusion that each star is different.[/li]
[/list]

Where did science make sucha  claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible declares that Light moves (Job 38:19,20).  Science then said Light was fixed in place.  Science has now admitted that light moves.[/li]
[/list]

Please stop stealing ideas from scientists and making up for your gap theory!
Those verses (Job 38:19,20) are not teaching that light moves. Rather, quoting them, they ask: "Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof," - it does not say that light moves. If that is what that verse was saying, then we should also say the same for darkness and claim that 'darkness moves'. This is one of those 'beautiful lies' you tell on God's behalf in order to mock Him. Well done.

@OLAADEGBU,

I earlier said I was done with your repetitious humour that addresses nothing and is at best a display of an upgraded circus show. Should we ride your spin? Okay, if you may.

OLAADEGBU:
Science is just catching up with the Bible and it still has a long way to go.

Wrong and thrice holy wrong, my guy!   If you noticed, my initial statement that you quoted was that "the Bible was not way ahead of modern science - on the contrary, modern science has left tradionalists far behind."

Two things here, without excuses:

(a)  'modern science' is not 'ancient science'. The latter has been shown for its many inaccuracies about the world and the Universe, while the former is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world. Therefore, in stating that the Bible is not way ahead of modern science, one needs to know what the latter has found out and then see how the Bible has already explained such phenomena accurately without interpolations from religious zealots.

(b) the term 'traditionalists' does not mean the entire Bible, but rather refers to people (like you) who would hold on to a religious interpretation of the Universe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. The texts are not the problem: rather, 'traditionalists' present far more problems to themselves and everyone in any field of enquiry bar none!

Once you begin to understand the quote you took from my post above, then you know where to stand and not just fire away presumptiously at what you least understand.

Let us see the history of science compared to what the Bible has revealed.

'Science' has never been the problem, because real scientists never claim to have 'ultimate truth' to any thing. Nor does the Bible itself - because the Bible does not claim to have revealed ultimate truth about everything concerning the Universe.

The problem has been with 'traditionalists' who try to bend everyone and everything to 6,000 years old and yet arrive at nothing! Just watch the reaction of these same 'traditionalists' when they are presented with irrefutable facts - they never address any question but just stand limply as declare all sciences "wrong", yet they cannot show how or why those sciences are wrong! We have seen this again and again in other threads where I asked you questions on this same thing - especially the one where you were patently confused about 'the ten scientific laws of information' in Dr. Gitts' talk. Up until now you have never ever attempted discussing anything, other than either quote devotionals from HMM or AiG, or just return insults and brand viaro all sorts of names (evolutionary bedfellow, spiritual rebel, etc., etc.).

The Bible that has been verbally inspired between 2,000 to 3,000 years ago made certain statements that science during those times did not get right.

Please stop confusing science for scientists - they are not the same!   Even reknowned scientists today acknowledge that 'scientists' in the past clearly did not understand certain scientific facts, and they have pursued their endeavour until they got it right - yet, they do not claim that they know it all and everyone is wrong! So, when you say that 'science' did not get this right or wrong, you're confusing matters for yourself, and also forgetting that some of the scientists of the past who failed to grasped scientific matters accurately were also CHRISTIANS!

[list]
[li]The Bible then stated that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).  Science then, said the earth was a flat disk.  Science has now discovered that the earth is a sphere.[/li]
[/list]

Science never claimed that the earth was a flat disk. If I ask you to show me where "science" ever said so, I bet you will quote "scientists" who made such assertions.  Even CHRISTIAN authorities who read that verse (Isaiah 40:22) were all preaching a flat earth and threatening to burn philosophers at the stake for having a contrary view.

Tongue-in-cheek sort of way, what happened to Galileo? Or, leave that for a minute and search to find that many Christians today still believe in a flat earth! Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic astronomy taught vigorously in the 19th century that the 'Earth Not a Globe'. After his death, the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church took up Rowbotham's 'flat earth' ideas - and that is as late as from the 19th century where everyone knows the truth about the sphericity of the planetray bodies. See this article again from the BBC website.

aletheia:
Apologies. ^{*Egg on my face*} I concede your point.

I like your attitude when shown what you took for granted.

Hallo again, the_seeker. Thank you for making the second attempt; and I have nothing against whatever you want to believe in a religious way. However, when you make assertions, it is understandable that your readers would ask questions - especially where those assertions seem skewed, or just dribble here and there. The same would be true if I were to quote the Bible or any other religious document and claim that such a writ was way ahead of science and people are only just confirming them. At the end of the day, it just goes to show that whoever is making such statements actually does not understand what is meant by the term 'science'.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=362859.msg5117528#msg5117528 date=1260884959]The topic of this thread is How The Universe Will End. The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.[/quote]That is only one theory, and it is fast giving way to an alternative theory where the Universe will not end in a big crunch by rather enter into another dimension different from the present and usher us all into an eternity never before imagined.

The quran  corroborate this precisely, from  the creation of the universe from a big bang to its expansion and finally it contraction to a 'crunch'.

I'm not so sure that is what the Quran suggests. Who even knows that the quran (any quran) teaches such a thing? Afterall, anytime people try to point out certain things to Muslims, they are never consistent and just swicth until they say that the Quran cannot be translated into another language since nobody knows exactly what the Quran is teaching. If you cannot translate a document into another language and get the same meaning, what then is the substance in what you present by quoting any translation of the quran?

Let's see what I mean by examining what you quoted:

THE BIG BANG
QURAN 21;30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass (Primeveal atom), which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?

The problem with that quote is that you're insinuating what it does not say. The quote suggests that 'the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass,' which you put in parenthesis as a 'primeval atom'; but you went on initially to interpret this as that "that the universe was separated from a whole". Now let me show you something crucial here:

      (a)   'the heavens and the earth' - says allah, 'were joined as one piece'
              . .  and it was the heavens and the earth that were parted apart.

      (b)   'the universe' was what you wrongly inferred was separated from a whole
              . .  and that is where your problem is, because you confused the message
              in that verse, which would confuse your readers as well.

Now, let me also quote the various English translations of that same verse to show what I'm pointing out:

[list]

Quran 0[b]21[/b].0[b]30[/b]

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [Yusuf Ali]

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? [Pickthall]

Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?  [Shakir]

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? - and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not then begin to believe? [M. Asad]

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not believe? [Hilali/Khan]

[/list]

Clearly, the quran says that it was the heavens and the earth that were parted asunder - not the Universe as you assumed was separated from a 'whole'.

THE BIG CRUNCH
QURAN 21;104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.

Sorry, mate. The translations on that verse do not suggest that allah was going to revert anything in creation. Perhaps it is muslim apologists in recent years who are trying to gull the public by making it sound like the quran is suggesting allah is going to revert creation - No, he is not !Here are the few verses in other translations:

[list]

Quran 0[b]21[/b].104

The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.   [Yusf Ali]

The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.  [Pickthall]

On the day when We will roll up heaven like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about. [Shakir]

And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.  [Hilali/Khan]

This is the Day when We fold the heavens the way the scribe rolls together the scrolls that are ready for the publishing of books, so that as We effected the first creation so will We effect recreation, a promise that We are Omnipotent enough to fulfill and bring to an end.  [Al-Muntakhab]

[/list]

You can see yourself, the case is not one of "big crunch" by "reverting" - nope. There is no need to make it sound like what it is not.

Viaro these verses are clear and unequivocal.

No, they are not - scroll up and see how you muddled them.

You posts show you are automatically assuming that the Quran (or any religious book for that matter) cannot be right on scientific matters.

I don't do so 'automatically'; rather, viaro examines each case on its own merit and likes to caution religiously minded folks to separate their fundamentalism from the beautiful enterprise of what is properly called 'science'. If any religious person thinks that his religion is 'scientific', they are free to come forward and show that same thing - no cutting corners or beautiful lies will do the job.

It took scientists only recently to confirm postulate what was already recorded in the Quran over 1,400 years ago.

We've been through thise before with Abuzola making a similar statement until I pointed out how that was an obvious lie. Should I do the same with yours here? Please be careful when you make statements like this around viaro - you may not like what you read later on.

I honestly do not get your point with the 'something' or how you inferred that there are two entities

It was not the "Universe" that was separated from a 'whole' as you interpreted it. Rather, it was the heavens and the earth that the quran says were parted from each other. If the Universe was separated from a 'whole', then you would have the universe and 'something' - which you did not name. But if it was the heavens that were parted from the earth, then you have both the heavens and the earth distinguished.