₦airaland Forum

Aemmyjah:
Look at the mirror
The person you see. Ask him if he is a product of a great, intelligent mind or a byproduct of blind Chance

I just did, I didn't see your God.
Do you want to give me a testable evidence for your God or you want to keep committing a teleological fallacy?

Aemmyjah:
It's all around you
Even the blind are 'seeing' it

It's like a deaddrunk man on a boat in the sea asking the sailor to prove that there is water. In other words, your request is pointless

show me one, I won't ask if I am seeing them

KnownUnknown:
Why are you always repeating this Eurocentric/white supremacist nonsense that the Bible was written by “goat herders”?
Why not be original if you want to slur the writers. They could have been Bronze Age farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, miners, smiths, etc . Why is it always “goat herders”?

lol, GOATherder is a metaphor

Aemmyjah:
Don't underestimate the power of the Creator as if he were a mere human
Humans have tried to defy laws,some with little success
There is nothing too wonderful for the Creator of life, animals, designer of the womb of a woman

Lemme ask you
Scientists have tried to transplant the organs of animals with man like the heart of a pig and other organs as well. Does that make us closer to pigs?

Give me one evidence that your God exist

Aemmyjah:
The person talked about something that happened to the sun in his location and also happened to the moon in another location.
This did not make sense to you cos it will not make any sense to your understanding and the Bible does not need to validation cos you don't understand as a dog cannot understand everything his Master does. A child may not understand all that the father. You seem to have sense than the Creator himself so I congratulate you in your reversed wisdom. Why not check the internet as to the possibilities of how that event could take place from scholars or Bible commentaries?

more reason why I cannot talk the Bible seriously.
Poor articulation of events.

A book that cannot properly articulate basic geography, biology and physics should be thrown into the dustbin.

Sun don't stop
Vrigins cannot conceive without fertilization
Snakes don't talk
Snakes cannot turn to stick.

. No evidence for any of these. It's all nonsense and can oy be found in myths like the bible

Aemmyjah:
Show me where the bible says the sun revolves round the Earth

I just did with Joshua.

Or do you want to explain to me what Joshua meant by the sun stopped over a city?

In relation to earth and sun movement, which one is moving and which is not?

Aemmyjah:
Lol
You're the one contradicting yourself with your last words

How?

Aemmyjah:
Because he did not describe how the phenomenon took place meant it never happens right
Sometimes, things that fellow humans do but we see as magic are not just magic. The person performing it knows what he did
I've seen so many on American gots talent and everyone is shocked as if it were grand.
How much more the Maker of the universe including the sun?
In Joshua's eye, the sun appeared to have stood still
Critics foolishly say the account is myth
Some scientists have tried to explain the possibilities for that to have taken place

Dude, the sun doesn't revolve round the earth hence can't stop. That's utter jargons that is unforgiveably wrong. The bihke is always wrong on basic things and then when you want to explain how wrong the Bible is, you have to insert magic called God.
There's no evidence that any make made any sun.

Stop making things up a d bring evidence. The Bible was written by bronze age goatherders who didn't know science. I can't trsyt such book, Joshua just proved it

The confusion of the origin of life and evolution, two very different things, is mainly due to the agenda of the some religious groups. I will explain, starting with evolution which is contrary to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

We define ‘life’ as based on cells. Life is an organised environment separated from outside by a semi-permeable membrane. It has an innate drive to survive and reproduce, and has the ability to acquire resources and to reproduce itself.

The original cells could find food, eat and divide into two by replicating themselves, including the template for doing it again: DNA. Later life got more complicated in several ways, including multicellularity and sexual reproduction.

Evolution is about how and why life got more complicated. It is a process that can only take place in living cells. It depends on the replication of DNA. It doesn’t involve anything before cells existed. The point of reproduction is to produce perfect copies. The reproductive process is good, but not perfect. The cell has many repair mechanisms for when occasional errors occur during replication, but some mistakes do happen.

DNA is a very big organic macromolecule. It is reasonably stable, but like any chemical, it will react under some conditions. Enter the environment. Earth’s surface is subject to natural radioactivity from within. It also under a constant rain of cosmic rays (actually particles). These active particles can penetrate cells and produce free radical which are very reactive. This is the source of some of the errors that can occur in DNA.

The errors that occur are random; they can happen anywhere in that huge macromolecule. The errors that get through, from internal or external causes, are what we call mutations. Mutations are why a population has a range of genetic variation. And without mutations and consequent genetic variation, evolution cannot take place.

But what are the consequences of mutations. The parent has survived and reproduced. Therefore it has the genetic makeup that works well enough in its environment to do that. A mutation changes the genetic makeup. It might have no effect - there are places along the DNA where a simple change doesn’t affect function. If it does have an effect, it can make the offspring a little better or a little worse at surviving and reproducing.

Over time and generations, those that are a little better outcompete the others and produce moe offspring and become the population. And this continues, generation after generation, with random mutations, every now and then, producing offspring a little better adapted to the environment. This is natural selection.

The environment can be stable for long periods, but it can change randomly and unpredictably, for example by an asteroid crashing on the planet, or the movement of tectonic plates, or wobbles of the Earth’s axis. This means that an organism finds itself less suited to the conditions.

This is where the those random genetic variations in the population, exposed to the random environmetal variation come into effect. The conditions work to select those that are best fitted to survive and reproduce. Either in stable conditions or through major environmental change, natural selection acts on the available genetic variations to modify the population to favour those better fitted to survive. If a population does not have the genetic capacity to adapt sufficiently or quickly enough, it becomes extinct.

This process of evolution is continuous in all organisms, usually far too slowly for us to observe directly. There is, however, a huge body of evidence for this process - what Darwin called ‘descent with modification by means of natural selection’. We have continued to collect data, to review and refine our understanding of evolution. That it is the explanation of how life has developed and diversified is unassailable, and that is what leads to difficulties for some religious people.

There has been an unrelenting attack on evolution ever since Darwin. This is most obvious in the USA, where there is a powerful religious conservative lobby, including fundamentalists: those who take the Bible to be the literal word of God. Evolution does not fit the Biblical view of life created in its final, unchangeable form, or of humans being unrelated to animals.

For almost a century, there have been legal attacks on teaching about evolution in schools. In the last 50 years as the population became more educated and enlightened, legal restrictions on teaching about evolution were removed. In 1968 legislation banning the teaching of evolution was struck down because it violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The anti-evolution response was to come up with an alternative they called creation science. This relies on an interpretation of the scientific evidence validating evolution to support the Biblical account, particularly the creation myth and flood story in Genesis.

Creationism created explanations to refute data from biology, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history, linguistics, physics, even dendrochronology (measuring tree age by annual rings). The new legal approach became to promote equal time for creation science whenever evolution science was taught. This was dispensed with in 1982, when the US Supreme Court determined that creation science was not science because it had none of the necessary elements of science (e.g. explained by natural means, testable, open to change).

The next attempt was the invention of intelligent design (ID). This was an attempt to redesign creationism in non-religious language. Some of the literal interpretation of the Bible was moved out of the discussion. Instead of God, an Intelligent Designer was responsible for creating life. Arguments were put forward based on ‘irreducible complexity’, that is, many chracteristics of life could not have developed through serial incremental changes so must have been designed.

The approach here was that ID was legitimate science, unconnected with a religious agenda. Again, in 2005, this failed before the US Supreme Court, which indicated that the ID was simply re-badged creationism intended to get around the First Amendment.

The classic example to support ID is the eye, the argument being that either an eye works or it doesn’t and any intermediate steps would not function, so eyes could not have arisen by natural selection. It must have been designed. This was refuted by science, demonstrating that functional vision existed at each stage from the original light-sensitive cell to the vertebrate eye.

The evolution of the eye also supported the random and imperfect processes of natural selection, not intelligent design: "Moreover, the eye contains a big flaw: the retina is inside out. Why would an almighty designer do such a thing? No intelligent designer, .. would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of the hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process." ~ Daniel Dennett

Of course, those who believe in their version of faith cannot accept the reality of evolution. They do not retreat from opposing the teaching of evolution. There is another aspect of biological science, though, that has none of the certainty of evolutionary theory.

Abiogenesis - the development of life from non-living origins - is still an unknown. There are hypotheses, based on some of the steps we know must have occurred, but we don’t know how the first cell formed. We know the precursors of macromolecules were present. We know that polymers will form and that nucleic acids can self-replicate and we know that phospholipid bilayers will form cell-like globules.

But we don’t know how those things came together to form proto-cells. We have hypotheses about it beginning with an RNA world, with RNA filling structural and enzyme roles as well as genetic material, later superseded by the DNA world we know. We don’t know how, but we know it happened. Before cellular life, we do not yet know.

If you have lost on every front to stop the teachings of science that underpin evolution, what are the options? The option the anti-evolutionists lit on abiogenesis. Science didn’t know. Here was an avenue of attack, and the attack went like this: “scientists can’t prove that God didn’t create life, so how can they expect us to believe in evolution?”

Most people outside scientists have only a general notion about biological processes, and no reason to disbelieve a well-presented, articulate story told by someone in a position of respect or authority. However, because we don't know yet is not an automatic evidence that God did it, if we should settle for the God fallacy then we never know, we wouldn't have known a lot of things that we know today.

Dtruthspeaker:
When The Debate Is Lost, Slander Becomes The Tool Of The Loser

am I lying?

Are you good in biology?

Should we test your knowledge?

Aemmyjah:
There were many things that people will have taught were impossible to do by humans but we now do so now
Humans are still learning about creation
We only know less than 1% about creation
Yet, mortal man thinks his small knowledge has made him wiser than the Creator himself

you are committing a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, because you can't explain it doesn't mean it's a miracle and that we cannot explain it later

Aemmyjah:
Joshua who wrote that verse just presented what he saw from his angle. He did not know or record how the phenomenon could have taken place.
Today too, we sometimes see notice strange phenomenon regarding the physical universe and we call or invite scientists or people with knowledge regarding that field to explain how that could have happened. Joshua just wrote what he saw. There are many factors that could have taken place for that incident to happen

the sun will never stop, it will never and hs never. If it does, we are finished.

This is why I don't trust the Bible, how can I trust what a Joshua who doesn't know basic geography has to say about how the earth started. And many religious people don't even know basic science and it's why I don't trsut what you have to say.

Dtruthspeaker:
Go and look for ssce gradings in the 80s/90s. It was A1, A2, C3, C4, C5 then F9 van't precisely remember for since I took it over 30 years back, I have not looked upon it again.

you are more than 40 years old and you still reason this way?

Anyways, you must have attended a bad school since you are still very poor in biology, maybe a special centre helped you

Aemmyjah:
It was a miracle from God
Unlike you, I believe that a powerful God is behind the making of life and the design of the human system. It won't be a problem for him to transfer the life of his son into the womb of a Virgin
Today, we have surrogacy (I don't know everything about surrogacy so forgive me if I'm wrong) , we also have children that can be incubated. Science are doing things that people would not have imagined. Infact, people do not use the word IMPOSSIBLE to describe feats again. They use the word IMPROBABLE or PROBABLE

there's no evidence that miracles exist. That's what you don't get.
Miracles are made up craps by Christians.

Humans can communicate with fellow humans in space
Humans can fly from one end of the Earth to the other
We can go to the deepest part of the sea for exploration
We can see what is going on in another part of the world at the same time without any wired connection
We can see what is beyond the milky way galaxy

what's your point here?

I'm in awe to think of what we can accomplish in the next 50 or 100 years regarding engineering, chemistry, astronomy, etc
Yet, man laugh at things recorded in the Bible cos he thinks he's more powerful than God. Man think that unless he himself can achieve something, God himself cannot do it... Man has tried to defy the natural with little or significant success. Because you see something defied like the issue of childbirth from a virgin, they scoff as if they have equal strength with the Creator

What we can measure can be measured with facts and evidence.
A God and creator cannot.

That's the issue. It's all why religion is not to be trusted. They never provide evidence for anything. Religion will say 1000 things and will not drop 1 evidence for any of it.

Aemmyjah:
Show me where the Bible says that sun is orbiting

Joshua 10:

12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on[b] its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Aemmyjah:
You pointed that the bible is just fiction
And I gave you something to consider if it is fiction or not?
The Bible description of the Earth hanging and without visible support is fraudulent right?

Is it not only in fictions we see a talking snake and a virgin giving birth?
Common, these things never happen in real life. There's no evidence that such has ever happened.
How can sticks turn to snakes and back to sticks, are these not fictions that you cannot explain unless you take the testability out of the reach of everyone?

It's hard to imagine a ball or anything hanging in space, how much more our planet Earth. How did Job know?

this same Bible said this ball has a dome and that the sun can stop orbiting (inferring that the sun orbits the earth is even ridiculous). How can the sun standstill, does that make any sense?

His contemporaries said the Earth was hanging in some creatures or on some oceans or something else. They believed the Earth had some rigid support. If the Great Aristotle had read Job words, he would have laugh at it as stupid and unreasonable. So the Bible is no mere fiction. You too should consider the evidence for yourself and not what the internet tells you or because it suits your beliefs

bros, I can show you 10 Bible passages infarring that the earth is a ladn covered in a dome and that sub orbits the earth. Stop telling me small lies

Aemmyjah:
The bible is not a science book
But what it says regarding scientific matters is always ahead of time?
We know that scientific theories changes from time to time. What was fact 500 years ago can become obsolete theory today.
The bible says something regarding the position of the Earth about 3500 years ago. It says that the Earth is hanging on nothing or having no visible support. That was not the common view and you know what the great aristotle taught regarding that. Only in Newton's day was is established that the Earth is hanging by means of gravitational forces. How did Job know?

evidence doesn't have to be science based.
You don't need science to show me evidence for a flying bird or a swimming fish.
Evidence is evidence and religious kind of evidence is always fraudulent that it's puts the testability out of reach of everyone because they know it's fraud.

If the Bible says that Jesus was conceived by a virgin, how do you expect that I believe that just because your bible said it. Will that not be foolhardy knowing fully well that no virgin has ever been documented to conceive without a male gamete donor?

Why should we believe whatever your book got to say without requesting that you guys provide the evidence?

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you insult because you can not rebut and your rubbish logic has been bursted, Doctor

Only one physics because Lie and deceit too plenty.

That is why I don't say P.N Okeke here but Ababio C4 and modern biology A2.

you? A2, there's nothing like A2 in biology.

triplechoice:
You're never reasonable or logical in most of the things you say.

So why should anyone hate you for that. You deserve pity and not hatred

llol, serious pity

paxonel:
I didn't say the bible is evidence. I said the bible says something is evidence and that thing is faith

I do not take the Bible as authority in issues concerning evidence.
y

tou can see faith everywhere.
Christianity is everywhere
but you are convince that faith is everywhere, atleast you have met Christians everywhere?
And coming to NL religion section is never a waste of time because you will surely see Christians there, more Christians who by far outnumbered atheists?

That's the evidence!

Because, if something is not real you will never have more people pushing into it for over 20 centuries now.
And all your efforts today trying to discredit a movement and it belief that has existed over 20 centuries ago will be like "chasing wild geese"
well!
Try and know it, it will be better

religious faith creates fictions and mirage. Their claims are never reliable and should not be trusted by anyone with IQ above average
If you have to convince me, you will show me an evidence I can test and not all the made up evidences in your religion

triplechoice:
He thinks he can use his knowledge of the Bible to understand medical science.

he doesn't even have any knowledge of the Bible, if not he won't believe the Bible.
The Bible is fraud

jaephoenix:
Youre going far. What about psychotic patients that are physically restrained and on intravenous injections prescribed by the psychiatrist? Do they need to trust or abide by the doctors' regimen?
MadMax is at his finest this morning

that guy is hilarious, he doesn't know that double-blinded placebo is a step towards establishing the efficacy of a drug.

The physician and the patient won't know what they are taking, the scientists won't know the outcome. Nobody will know anything and it works.

Hes a dumb guy

MaxInDHouse:
Why not go against the prescription of the physician and see if the baby gets well?

Ọmọ you must BELIEVE (TRUST) the physician by applying his prescriptions (commandments) otherwise the drug will only kill your baby!

Even in a Doble-blinded placebo when the physician doesn't know what drugs he's giving, antibiotics still works.

MaxInDHouse:
Why not go against the prescription of the physician and see if the baby gets well?

Ọmọ you must BELIEVE (TRUST) the physician by applying his prescriptions (commandments) otherwise the drug will only kill your baby!

the physician knows it will work because there is evidence that it does with or without prayers

MaxInDHouse:
Don't mix things up now!

Prayer connotes Consultation just as you must consult the physician who will now prescribe the drugs and you must BELIEVE (TRUST) the physician otherwise you will never get the benefits of the drug!

Even if the physician doesn't believe that it Wil work, an antibiotics will work against a susceptible bacte3 100 in 100 times.

MaxInDHouse:
Don't mix things up now!

Prayer connotes Consultation just as you must consult the physician who will now prescribe the drugs and you must BELIEVE (TRUST) the physician otherwise you will never get the benefits of the drug!

Antibiotics will work wether or not you believe.
It's why it's very effective at treating bacteria infections in babies who are incapable of beliefs

MaxInDHouse:
You have started lying!

If the patient DID NOT BELIEVE (TRUST) the one prescribing definitely he will not follow the prescription of the physician so the antibiotics won't work as expected just as an unbeliever can't get any benefits from God's word if you DID NOT BELIEVE (TRUST) in God to follow the prescription:

This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself, The One guiding you in the way you should walk. If only you would pay attention to my commandments (prescription)! Then your peace would become just like a river And your righteousness like the waves of the sea! Isaiah 48:17-18

God never promised anyone automatic benefits you must BELIEVE (TRUST) in Him by applying the prescription correctly just as you must BELIEVE (TRUST) the physician's COMMANDMENTS PRESCRIPTION.

So stop deceiving yourself

antibiotics will work whether or not you believe.
It will kill microorganisms whether or not you pray

paxonel:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God is not seen that's why you can afford to say that there is no God right?
The fact that there are people still having faith in God till now all these centuries is the evidence that God lives all through the centuries

the Bible is not evidence, its a claim.
How do you get that?

You cannot convince people like me with the Bible, it's a waste of time. I probably know the Bible more than you do

MaxInDHouse:
You know nothing about SCIENCE!

You mentioned ANTIBIOTICS (MEDICINES) and said it works whether you believe or not but real SCIENTISTS will tell you that you MUST BELIEVE (TRUST) in medicines before it could work!

Manufacturing and prescribing medicine for a patient can't save the sick person unless the patient first BELIEVE (TRUST) in what you gave him/her that he/she could recover fast from his illness.

If the patient should BELIEVE (TRUST) in a fake drug it will never work just as your trust in false religions won't work too. So for anything to work first of all it must be ORIGINAL and the user must BELIEVE (TRUST) in the doctor's prescription.

So what is BELIEVE?
Believe is the act of trusting in someone or something that if you do exactly as you are told you will get the benefits. But when you fall into the wrong hands (false religions or fake doctors) your belief or trust will surely not save you because it has been MISPLACED.


May you have PEACE!

antibiotics will work whether or not the patient believe it will.
That's science

The lightning conductor on top of yur witness church/parish or whatever you call it will work whether or not you believe in it

The moment you tap submit on your next irrational post, I will see it whether or not you believe I will. I will see it whether or not I believe it

paxonel:
Science does not offer solution to your spiritual needs, only religion do.
And religion does not offer solution to your innovative approach towards solving physical problems other than your moral values

because there's no evidence for any spiritual need in the first place. It's waa made up

The base rate fallacy.

Say that we have a city with 1 million people, and that 100 of them are terrorists.

Say that we have a terrorist detection machine, that will identify a terrorist with 99% certainty—that is, it will correctly identify a terrorist 99 times out of 100.

The machine will also give “false positives”. It will incorrectly identify a “normal” person as a terrorist 1% of the time; that is, if you use it on 100 people who are not terrorists, it will still flag one of them.

A person is tested by the machine, and it goes “Bing! Terrorist!”

What is the chance that the person actually is a terrorist?

Correct answer: about 1%.

Sadly, the same mathematics apply to medical tests, and most doctors are completely ignorant of this. If you have the same city, and 100 people in it are HIV positive, and your test similarly identifies 99% of those who are, but incorrectly flags 1% of those who aren’t—then this means that if you get your test back and it’s positive, it’s way more likely that you are not HIV positive. But most doctors will say it’s 99% likely. A fairly large proportion will say it’s 50%. Some will even say it’s completely certain.

People have committed suicide over this. When the second test came back and proved they were healthy, it was too late.
And when some of these people go to church and get prayers, they claim that they got cured from HIV. HIV test is not 100% in the first place

Obaaderemi2:
Those who will accept will accept and those who will not will not.

Then we will keep reminding them so they will continue in their pain and agony