₦airaland Forum

hupernikao:
Can you give me one magic like, in Christianity?

Are you seriously asking me this question?
Every part of the Bible is magical.

Even the birth of Jesus is magical

hupernikao:
You haven't still yet understood the both sides you are pitting together. You talk in absolute term whereas the very science you speak of talks in relative. Even in the face of accurate result, science language is still presented in relative terms.

So if man doesn't come from dust (since it's sound ridiculous to you), where did man come from, even as per science. Put it here.

sorry, I cannot understand stuffs that contradict evidence.
The evidence we have is clear, evolution is fact and creation is not.

No evidence for a god
Noah’s flood is hoax
Humans cannot undergo parthenogenesis.

Those are what Christianity entails and they aren’t consistent with facts on ground. We have to let you guys stop spreading those lies

hupernikao:
You are really joking. It's not smart trying to always pit science and religion or church against each other. It's not a clever approach at all. It's an assumption of those who never see beyond their room doors.

No one here claimed Pastor or church is competing or giving scientific results. Why are you troubled with that. We are all looking at how things works or should be. That is what you should face. Science isn't working on disproving the bible, it's working to know how things works. It's only those who Ave identity crises that try to bring trouble here.


[b][A result that doesn't stay beyond 1000 years cannot be called stable. And that's the domain of science, dynamic that has changed and evolved almost every 100 years. [\b]

So calm down and look at the real issues than dressing a boxing ring for science and religion.

if I tell you now that you don't understand how science works, you will see it as an insult.

Why can't you just ask how it works instead making nonsense up. Please kindly read up for precisions and accuracy in experiemmets before embarrassing your household with your sciolism.
A radiometric dating result of 350milliom years with a precision level of + or - 1000 is still very valid. Even with - or + 10, 000

Read up precision in scientific experiment before you type anything because if you type nonsense here, I go bash you

hupernikao:
Firstly, you should correct the way you do feel the body of science knowledge lies at your door step. Telling someone you don't know, that he doesn't know how science works is a rush conclusion.

Secondly. What you write up there just confirmed exactly what he has been telling you. That the technology is dynamic hence writing off an assumption, or a likelihood of things is like saying science can't be done change. If science can and always evolving why then the conclusion that he is very wrong. A true scientist never absolutely write off opinions the way you do.

A scientist will write off opinons that are ridiculous and magical. Magic like in Christianity is not acceptable in science.

It's either you work it out or get lost with the "God did it" notion. You dig?

hupernikao:
You are really joking. It's not smart trying to always pit science and religion or church against each other. It's not a clever approach at all. It's an assumption of those who never see beyond their room doors.

No one here claimed Pastor or church is competing or giving scientific results. Why are you troubled with that. We are all looking at how things works or should be. That is what you should face. Science isn't working on disproving the bible, it's working to know how things works. It's only those who Ave identity crises that try to bring trouble here.


A result that doesn't stay beyond 1000 years cannot be called stable. And that's the domain of science, dynamic that has changed and evolved almost every 100 years.

So calm down and look at the real issues than dressing a boxing ring for science and religion.

Science will always be pitted against religion if religion don't stop lying about their beliefs.

How can you tell us that we were created from dust by a magical being without any evidence to back it? Even after the overwhelming evidence presented by theory of evolution that its false. All you do is deny science and evidence.

Whether or not you like it, science is unintentionally revealing the lies in religion

Nothingserious:
You failed all the questions I asked you. Even in a million years you can’t answer them. I never intended you to answer them. I only wanted you to keep pondering the ridiculousness of your warped logic. Let it keep ringing in your subconscious.

Thank God you said “ I can’t believe...”. That is a good start...just a personal decision by you and not based on any empirical refutation.

Well I can believe it!

I can't answer questions a slowpoke who thinks a 700years old man kept all species of thr world in a wooden ship for 1years

Nothingserious:
I am happy you have conveniently deflected from your initial intended punch-line. You saw it was self-destructive and self-refuting. Lol!
I would have loved you to keep asking those silly questions so I can keep up with ridiculous but valid responses you can’t contend with.
Well keep my questions in your head and keep wondering about the defects in viewing all reality thru strict empiricism and materialism. You only end up denying yourself and shooting yourself in the foot.

You haven’t shown me an empirical proof of the validity of your statements. I have waited for hours on end.

You can also watch the cartoons of Noah’s ark and other Bible stories since you prefer cartoons.
Cheers

baba Noah Ark
The miraculous ark of the lord

DrBrainstorm:
Pele, I didn't know Noah was a Carpenter cum Zoologist . Oponu abeg getat

nothingserious dull Gan.

Chicken brain wey dey believe fairy tales �

Nothingserious:
You don’t know science better than any Christian because the person is a Christian. You only know science better than anyone including skeptics because you studied and perhaps practiced it better than anyone.
We have so many experts in sciences with Christian background. We all know the huge contributions Christianity made in sciences that gave birth to what you have today. Pls stop talking about what know little about.

I am happy you believe all the billion years theories despite the fact that you didn’t witness or observe any of them or saw any repeated ( repeatability and observation principles in sciences). But you just believed. And that is faith!

Keep it up!
Lol

Christians do science of magic

[s]

Acehart:
FYI:

You seem not to know about the earth's tectonic history. Please observe the maps below as you read this:

This is the way the earth looked several millions of years ago. At one point all of these continents were once joined up. This giant landmass known as a supercontinent was called Pangea. The word Pangaea means "All Lands", this describes the way all the continents were joined up together. Pangea existed 240 million years ago and about 200 million years ago it began to break apart. Over millions of years, these pieces came to be the continents as we know them today.

With regards to Kangaroos, the oldest known fossil ancestor of today's kangaroos and koalas have been found by scientists. Their mouse-sized ancestor, Sinodelphys szalayai, was found in north-eastern China and is believed to be 125 million years old.

My friend, you need to read more. Not because you are oblivious of something doesn't mean it is non-existent. (Nor all distance is absence, not all silence is oblivion). There is beauty in humble silence. Man has not existed for billions of years, hence, the evolution you have stated is a fallacy.

As for God, the master of timing and conservation, the perfect time to preserve all animals is to take the prime DNA/RNA when the continents are still one. Have you not read that before the tectonic plates parted, the earth had a universal weather condition- from the time of yore to Noah?

[/s]
Whenever an average Christian tries to talk about science, it’s always ends in disaster.
Continental drift and splitting happened 175million years ago. At this time, Homo erects has not even started walking on this planet and you want to link Noah’s flood to it.
The oldest human fossil is just 300,000years and Noah story happens according to the Bible chronology 4000years Ago.
You need to be really stupid to belie ve this stories and then extraordinary stupid to try to defend it with inconsistent science

So Noah’s flood happens earlier than 175million years ago. You must be a joker

You better remove that nonsense you posted before I disgrace you.

Nothingserious:
Did science say this? Show me how science said it is not true. So you have moved to science now? Does science and religion mix?

I can see your level of reasoning now. A Christian is still ahead of you in logic and rational thinking.

Stop asking anybody to show you anything and tell us how your imaginary wooden ship housed all terrestrial species for one year in a mythical flood.

I will rather watch cartoons that believe such nonsense

Nothingserious:
The logic lies in logic itself. As long as you struggle with the logic of logic, you will never understand it. I was hoping you were going to say specifically how you arrived at your conclusions. Same gibberish and parroting of what you learnt from someone.111

Why you dey vex?

I can’t believe that ridiculous story by force na? I’m not stupid sir

hupernikao:
He never dismissed it. You want to put that in his words. And that's not good. He told you that such results have had wrong output before. He never said all its results were wrong. This is what you should face.

Is he lying about this.
Has the result of dating always been accurate. You are the one who is neglecting this.

This is the basis of his own argument.

You have no idea how science works.

Even some of the parameters on your phone will be corrected in future. It’s not absolute, you keep learning and improving unlike religious people who are dogmatic and never accept new evidence

hupernikao:
1. That scientific dating has presented faulty results in some cases.

2. That the 6000 years earth from the Bible is your own creation. Not the Bible.

These are the issues.

1. Radiometric has to be verified so many times and that’s how the fault are gotten and corrected. But when it’s correct, the results are usually consistent. The fault was not detected by pastors or church members who debunk it, it was detected by scientists using the same radiometric dating to correct it.
2. We don’t know the version of Christian creation story to take seriously again

He use to be my friend when I was still in Enugu. I do business with his hospital (st. Leo hospital) at Nowas junctions

Nothingserious:
Okay so we have established the fact that you have back-pedaled on your initial claim to have a superior thinking faculty than Christians? Good.

We also agree that you could not provide empirical analysis for your statements made earlier.

We also established that your claim that anything not empirically established cannot be believed in was a ruse and falsehood.

Why should we listen to any other you have to tell us now?

Bros, your Noah flood of a 700years old man building a boat that housed millions of species is mid night fairy tales.

Only people in the uneducated village and deranged fundamentalists in the city believe such a joke story. No wonder such nonsense cannot make reasonable science textbooks
You should be listen to full moon tortoise stories instead

Nothingserious:
Lol!

You aren’t even using your brain properly.
You would have been able to understand that your mind and logic are immaterial yet process a lot of valid truths that are firmly believed in without additional empirical evidences.
Could you just use the organ and think deeply?
Again, I still haven’t seen any difference in the way you think and the way a Christian thinks.

Whats the logic behind a story that says a magical sky daddy commanded million of species to travel to Middle East and join a ship made of wood.

Even Superman krypton story is more believable and even have more probability of happening

Nothingserious:
Lol!
You see why the Christian and other theists are logical and sensible?
You know deep down in your heart that you cannot attempt answers to those questions. In fact you don’t have empirical evidences to short their reality. You simply termed it straw man and deflected. Do you know what strawmanning is?

You want me to discuss empirical evidences with you yet your statement cannot be empirically tested to be true.

Na wa for you ooo

Whats logical in believing that Kangaroo hopped from Australia to Middle East to join a wooden ship that houses millions of species for a year.

Sounds like something I read in Spider-Man comic. Can’t you use your brain? That organ is a product billions of years of evolution, use it

Greatzeus:
Show me anywhere in the Bible where it stated the date the earth was created or where the age of the earth was stated?
It was expressly and simply stated that " In the beginning,God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1. It stated that the earth was without form, before the 7 days creation,earth was without form, meaning earth was already existing but without form.
It also stated that the Spirit of God moves over the deep(water), meaning water was already existing.
It also stated that God separated the water from land,note he didn't create water or land in Genesis,they were already in existence.
That in the beginning means dateless time. The universe existed long before creation of Adam.
What happened in Genesis was a recreation,God was redesigning what( Man and Nature) he once designed and destroyed by flood.
Yes creation account of Genesis was a restoration of earth to what it was, before He(God) punished it through flood.

1,000 Christians, 1,000 interpretations

A001:
No one takes experts in Christian science seriously.

They are only relevant on social media argument but in real life their ideas are irrelevant in scientific research.

A good number among them cannot decipher simple atomic model but they want to discredit years of empirical research in radiometric dating because it contradicts they ridiculous belief system.

Nothingserious:
And here we go again!
Do you have any empirical evidence that the statement you put up there is true? Show us pls.

I am sure you are trying to sound logical by applying logic. Do you have any empirical evidence that logic exists? Yet you use logic everyday. How about maths, numbers, aesthetics and your own consciousness?
You don’t have any of those. You believe in them without asking questions. You just assume they are valid. Why do you then think all forms of reality can be empirically tested?

So tell me starting from your statement.

Dont ask me strawman questions.

Noah’s ark story is gibberish

Nothingserious:
How do Christians think?
How do skeptics think?
How do humans generally think?
What makes your thinking pattern different from the Christian who incidentally is also a human like you?

I don’t believe tales that cannot be verified by sound empirical evidence.

That’s the difference between skeptics and Christians.

hupernikao:
This is strawman argument. He raised issues, talk about it. That's how to discuss.

What issues did he raise?

hupernikao:
You and A001 need to work on how you reason and handle thoughts in arguments. If not you will be lying against people and say what they never said. Donnie never said all you wrote above. Give your argument and stop using strawman approach, either in abusive or deviation. Since you know better and wiser,address what he raised. That's how to speak.

I would have taken him seriously if he had explained the basic mechanism of radiometric dating to me. But he dismissed radiometric dating results without first understanding the basics

His likes are called conspiracy theorists

donnie:
I'm not a Christian, talkless of fundamentalist. And I'm not foolish and gullible. FOCUS.

You have thousands of peer reviewed paper in science

A001:
Who cares about your ignorant opinion?

If I want to learn anything about the origin of man, I know who to consult: experts in archeology and paleontology.

Donnie is a biblical paleontologist
Expert researcher in the field and has several peer reviewed scientific papers

donnie:
Nope it is not. Reason they said it had certain features that resembled that of modern man. https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science

Lol, do you even understand the National Geographic article you posted?

donnie:
I think I have successfully challenged and debunked your initial bogus claim of 300,000 years as the age of modern man. The rest is not my concern now.

Who takes the opinion of a nairaland Christian fundamentalist seriously on issues regarding science?

One that cannot even explain basic principles of radio metric dating for that matter

donnie:
Homo sapiens

So the human fossil found in Morocco that dated 300,000years old is not Homo sapiens?

donnie:
Anyone can google that. All I'm saying is there's a lot of propaganda involved in this thing you call science. So while you appreciate their findings, ensure that you are woke and don't swallow all their lies.

My point has been made, Adam was not necessarily the beginning of the earth. There could have been other beings on the earth, including some that may have been called MAN before Elohim decided to make this man in his own image.

Even the the 7-day creation story might have been thousands or even millions of years. So don't use that to discredit the scriptures.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So in other words, you don’t understand the basic principles of radiometric dating, you just want to say rubbish and quote the Bible?

Donnie, I’m waiting for you to explain the mechanism of radiometric dating which you claim is exaggerated.
At least you have to understand the basics before reaching that conclusion.

donnie:
EARLY HUMANS...not modern humans. There's a huge difference. These ones did not descend from Adam. Even their physical features were different.

Besides, there's usually too much exaggeration with that their radiometric or radiocarbon whetever.

Do you know how radiometric dating works?
If yes, kindly explain