₦airaland Forum

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

Because science works even if you don't believe in it. Antibiotics, gravity and Hydrogen Peroxide all do their thing whether you pray for them or against them or don't pray at all. The universe does not care about your religion, it rolls on regardless. Vaccines protect babies in a way that God or prayer never could. You don't need to believe in a lightening conductor for it to protect your church from lightening strikes. Science is about understanding the universe to the best of our ability. It's not perfect and nowhere near complete, but it only ever improves, and so far we have not needed to invoke a higher power

The GOAT debate is officially between Pele and Messi. Maradona and Ronaldo are out of it for many reasons:

1. To be part of the GOAT debate, you need to have a significant mark in local league, Continental league and the world cup. Pele and Maradona, Messi all left a mark at these stages, Ronaldo is no where to be found on the biggest stage, which is the world cup.

2. On the basis of Goal contributions and individual awards and achievements, Messi and Pele and light years above Maradona.


Now who's your GOAT between Pele and Messi?

1. Pele boast of 3 world cup and 1 world cup golden ball while Messi has 1 world cup, copa america and 2 world cup golden balls. Pele never won copa america.

2. Messi has more world cup goals and assists then Pele. Both participated in 4 world cup.

3. Messi has more total assists and goals than Pele.

4. Messi has won more trophies than Pele in history.

5. Messi is the highest goal scoring south American in history, both in international tournaments and club tournaments.


Your guess is good as mine, aside for more world cup trophies, Pele is no match for Messi in other categories.
Their international career is very similar but I think Pele has an edge there, howner Pele does not have two world cup golden balls and Copa America.

Messi is the greatest of all time in football

Kingcalls:
Till Messi wins golden boot in 3 leagues , till Messi scores 118 International goals, till he breaks champions league goal scoring records....Ronaldo remains the greatest.... Mr pessi , the penalty merchant is a fraud , wc was gifted to him

who dey follow local champion drag Golden boats.

Loca European champion. We dey talk about world cup medal, this one dey call golden boot. Why you local like this?

Niklaus398:
ok ue choice and I respect it.

Not the choice of Renoun individuals or FIFA so we ok with that.

Even Ronaldo biggest sport critics like Rooney will easily put him in top5

you cannot say for sure.

The only thing helping Ronaldo is the PR and goals. Aside that, Gerd will top him based on records on global stage

Niklaus398:
oga Giroud was key in France winning it 4 years ago so simply using ur logic he was better than Messi and modric simple.

Since he has won it

how many Motm does Giroud have in world cup?

How many awards has he won?
How many Ballon dor does he have?

How many Ucls does he have?

How many league trophies?

How did Giroud even enter the debate when is not extraordinary both in Europe and world?

Ronaldo is extraordinary in Europe but not in world cup. Modric and Messi are extraordinary in both places

Niklaus398:
ok ur choice.

When the main list is brought.. I want to see if indeed your Gerd Muller will be ahead of Ronaldo lol.

No body or renoun someone that have listed the Goats have ever put your Gerd Muller ahead of Ronaldo.. not in this lifetime.

Na you where full with hate dey do m

I am giving you facts now.

Maradona got nothing on Gerd muller, and this same Maradona is whom you think should be ahead of Ronaldo. If you have any stat that Maradona surpasses Gerd aside from dribbles, bring it and let's see

The logic doesn't add up it Gerd is not ahead of Ronaldo

Niklaus398:
on thaf basis it means modric is there. Modric has enter FIFA Hall of Fame lol ... On that basis Giroud was better than Messi before Sunday simply because he has won the world cup. Agreed?

that's not the logic.

The logic is you have to get it done in Europe and the world. Modric and Messi did it in both places. Ronaldo only did it in Europe, Giroud is not even a key player anywhere.

If Ronaldo can get it done in both places, he will easily be 4th or even 1st, depending.

I hope you are reasoning

Niklaus398:
everything apart from the world cup.

It was Same example I gave above for delima and Ronaldo.

Remove world cup. Remove Champions league trophies of Ronaldo too.

Ronaldo beat Gerd in every indices.

More BD. More player of match. More assists. More freekivk goals. More and more everything u could think of.
More player of the season or player of the year. More and more of everything

Gerd mullee case is different because Gerd has champions league and world cup.

Gerd scored almost same goals as Ronaldo and assists almost same.

You cannot just remove world cup now like you did for Delima, because it's a big factor in this debate.

There's nothing basically that Ronaldo won that Gerd didn't win the same version in his time. But Ronaldo doesn't have world cup.

This world cup is why we are placing Maradona ahead of Ronaldo in the first place. Maradona doesn't even have a champions league trophy, Gerd has it.

Gerd scored more goals than Maradona and had more assists. How come Maradona is ahead of Ronaldo and Gerd is not ahead of Ronaldo?

Niklaus398:
Do you read at all? Who is comparing Messi and Ronaldo? We are talking if Ronaldo is top 5 in � debate and I said he will easily make 4th but can't make third cause maradona is there and got a world cup

Aside PR, I think Gerd Muller is even greater than Maradona.

We can put the statistic to test on this.

For me the top 3 are

Pele, Messi and Gerd muller. Maradona should be 4th.
MARADONA has got nothing on Gerd.

Maradona doesn't have a UCl title, he didn't score as. Uch goals or assists as much as Gerd. To cap it all, Maradona performed on drugs

Niklaus398:
Do you read at all? Who is comparing Messi and Ronaldo? We are talking if Ronaldo is top 5 in � debate and I said he will easily make 4th but can't make third cause maradona is there and got a world cup

I do not agree that Ronaldo should be 4th to be honest.

What does Ronaldo have on Gerd muller?
Tell me

Niklaus398:
hope you place Gerd Muller ahead of Messi before Messi won this world cup ?

If you didn't then look at the mirror and find out you are simply a hatefilled person

Even Before Messi won the world cup, he had entered the FIFA hall of fame by winning the golden ball. It's something Ronaldo doesn't.

You can only compare Ronaldo to Messi in Europe now and not on global stage. It's the bitter truth

On what basis should Messi and Ronaldo be compared on global stage if Ronaldo always disappears at the world cup

Ade1177:
You're being sentimental

Not possible

Ronaldo can't be rolled out

You cannot talk about Messi without CR7

Just not possible
I repeat not Possible

They are both engraved in each others story

Absolutely no way to talk about One without the other

Fine the ending of Cristiano didn't go down well
But cmon you were not born yesterday you can't deny what those two did over the years

Ronaldo doesn't have a world cup trophy, that's the biggest sporting tournament in the world. He doesn't have a mark there.

It is why he cannot be compared with Messi.

When it comes to Europe, you can compare him with Messi but not on a global stage because world cup trophy, golden balls, assists and goals will easily make Messi beat Ronaldo now.

It's the new reality you have to accept

Niklaus398:
now i know na hate dey do u lol.

Nigga won it once... Ronaldo won it 5 times.
Had the highest goals ever in history while playing majorly as a weekend for 2003-2014.. that's 10 years.

Ur Gerd Muller played as a striker yet Ronaldo tops him in goals

Ronaldo 5 CL. How many your Gerd Muller get?
Really hate is doing u. Lol

if Ronaldo manages to get just 1 world cup, you can even place him above Pele. It's when all these your UCl statistics can become relevant

Niklaus398:
ok. Have you finished? Even your Messi or Pele or even maradona won't make this useless statement. Lol.

FIFA thinks so.
I can't trust you and distrust Fifa

Niklaus398:
now i know na hate dey do u lol.

Nigga won it once... Ronaldo won it 5 times.
Had the highest goals ever in history while playing majorly as a weekend for 2003-2014.. that's 10 years.

Ur Gerd Muller played as a striker yet Ronaldo tops him in goals

Ronaldo 5 CL. How many your Gerd Muller get?
Really hate is doing u. Lol

one world cup encompasses whatever thing you had in Europe. Especially if that player also had many trophies in Europe.

A player with 2 Ucls and 1 world cup, 500 goals is greater than a player with 6UCLs and 600 goals. World cup is key.

It's like winning 10 EPL or LA ligas with many goals, you cannot compare such player with some with 2 EPls or LA Liga and 2 Ucls and he also has almost as many goals as you. Ronaldo can win 20 Ucls, Pele with 3 world cup and more world cup goals will still be ranked above him

That's the logic.