Vyzz:




What are u even saying?

Abeg help me ask am

Farki:


That's because it requires known scientific principles, paleontology and archeology to be discarded or reinterpreted to prove the Biblical narrative as fact
.

Again, you didn’t answer my question but attacked straw man as usual. My question again is that:
Does known laws of Physics and Chemistry or even Mathematics change because the Bible is involved (excluding miracles)?

Farki:


https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1#ix

It starts with the conclusion that the Bible is true then tries to go out of it's way to convince others of the fact, any evidence to the contrary is discarded to creation "scientists".
.

For the book by National Academy of Science, it has been long refuted with sound Scientific facts (except those laws don’t work again because they are used by a Bible believing Scientist). I would love to send you where you can download the book but you definitely won’t read it just as I see that you don’t bother to read others that I sent to you but only look for refutations.

Farki:


Your work is not censored creation "scientists" simply ignore every scientific finding that is against their worldview in an attempt to prove something with shoddy evidence that relies on faith and pass it off as science. Asking me to entertain such silly stories is like a child demanding that I consider the story of Santa Claus and his magic sleigh to be real because Saint Nicholas was a real person.

Again, you didn’t address your fallacy of arguing from silence that I exposed but attacked straw man again. The same accusation that you make against Creation Scientist (any scientist who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible; including the supernatural creation of the universe is by default, a creation scientist. The list will include Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Ampere, Johan Keppler, John Hartnet, Wener Gitt, Stuart Baugress etc. so you should know what you are talking about when you try to ridicule the words ‘Creation Scientists) are exactly why I said there is censorship in the academia.

Farki:



Seriously this trash is your idea of a rebuttal, this is less an example of dinosaurs being disproven than a display of your ignorance on this topic.

First Carbon 14 has a half life of 6,000 years with a limit around 60,000 years and is not used to date dinosaur bones.

The samples were found to have been contaminated and obtained under dubious circumstances.

The rocks the samples were gotten from were shown to be 99 million years old.

There are additional errors with this "study" that are looked into with great detail in this link.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat/154606

The link you posted talked about Hugh Miller sending borrowing (contaminated?) samples of dino fossils and sending to a lab in University of ARIZONA. This is a good evidence that you did not read the article in the link I sent. The article presented evidence with proofs of correspondence of how different labs different from what you link mentioned carefully carbon dated dino BONES (not just fossils), including the Prof Mary Schweitzer’s discovery in which she received so many backlash, the persecution of Armittage and so on. You just proved my intuition that you didn’t even read the technical paper on the stability of the ark as I was surprised that you couldn’t fault anything both only resort to ad hominem. That was why I asked if laws of Physics and Chemistry changes the moment Bible is involved, which you never answered.
Basically, your link did not address the problems in the link I sent but another issue entirely. I felt you are a pursuer of facts, but you seem to just call what you can't defend 'trash'.
Also, the second statement there shows the bias I talked about. Evolution is so flexible that almost any anomaly fits. A dino bone can NEVER be carbon dated because it is BELIEVED that they exist beyond the limit of carbon dating as described in the geologic column

Farki:


Can Ken Ham's Ark float? Ships of similar length didn't last long at sea yet you want me to believe this roughly and hurriedly constructed ark was seaworthy.

Enough with the creationist rubbish already, stop reading articles by people who's main aim is to misrepresent facts and misinform you. They offer no facts only assumptions which, of course, have no basis in reality. Or you mean to tell me Noah trekked all the way to Australia to get Eucyleptus leaves for the 2 koalas that would be on the ship. If you start taking into account the fact that creationists think dinosaurs were on Noah's ark but didn't consider their nutritional requirements.

Again, instead of trying to see what they actually say on your questions, you discard them a priori. I didn’t respond to your perceived problem of feeding and others because I also saw those problems and searched to see if there is any convincing respons. Ken Ham didn’t build his replica to float. I talked about it before but you are bent on repeating misrepresentations that you have been reading. To ignore creationist articles, you still have to tell me if laws of nature that they use in explaining HISTORICAL SCIENCE changes. (Note: the term evolution and creation is just on origin, it has nothing to do with operational science. Both have different worldview with which they interpret data that has to do with origin. As I explained in the paragraph above, the big names of science are known scientist whose works are heavily recognized.)

Farki:


Do you really think creation "scientists" would consider any information or publish any finding or construct any study which doesn't "prove" biblical claims. Just like they keep finding Noah's ark in different locations every year and they are 100% certain every time.

Again, the ‘smart’ one dodged my question and replied with a red herring. (guess logic should be a compulsory course for all discipline in tertiary institutions). Until you answer my questions, then I can answer yours. I won’t fall for your fallacious trick

Farki:


You literally just described the bacteria developing new features which enable them to survive and adapt to a changing environment. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Your fallacy of equivocation won’t work, please. What evolution says in simple term is that ‘simplest’ organisms would gradually add structures over time, giving rise to organisms complex than their ancestors. So how does loosing a function add to the structure of bacteria? Has the resistance ability changed it from bacteria to another thing? So tell me how that has proved evolution. Natural selection or speciation is part of the creation/flood model and it is not an exclusive proof for evolution.

Farki:


Again you just described evolution, where specific traits are selected over time due to environmental pressures. What could have been a minor mutation in a dozen organisms was allowed to spread. The peppered moth only appeared within the last 200 years.

You are just funny. Selection of traits is a proof that those organisms have a large gene pool that could be selected for to adapt to their environment. It does not mean that the organism would develop new structures that would eventually make it complex than it was before, which is what evangelists of evolution have been pushing down our throats. I hope you know the problem of irreducible complexity (read it up before you look for a hand waving refutation), and the problem of information in DNA. As for the bolded, I only laugh at your ‘knowledge’. You seem to confuse time appearance and time observation of natural selection

Farki:


You keep bringing up strawman arguments in order to (badly) claim evolution is false while simultaneously defending a falsehood. Maybe it's because you are unable to truly grasp how long several million years is.
White people with blue eyes only appeared several thousand years ago.

You seem not to understand what strawman argument is because I constantly show when you make a logical fallacy and state what it is. You just made an accusation without showing where it is made. Again, claiming I am unable to grasp how long several million is another claim and arguing from silence. You don’t have any method for determining that and worse, how can you tell us that you grasp it.

Farki:


Concerning your paragraph about interpretation there is no "different interpretation" creationists are simply wrong and ignoring decades of research to keep their personal religious beliefs validated.

You are fond of making hand waving statements as you don’t know that Bible believing scientists are just competent and qualified in their fields as atheistic scientists. So claiming that they are wrong is an absurd claim. It seems you don’t understand the concept of paradigm in doing (HISTORICAL) science, else you won’t make such statement. Any evidence MUST be interpreted according to evolutionary paradigm, else it is not accepted. Check Prof Richard Lewontin’s quote concerning materialism.
Also, it would be good that you get informed on the history of modern science because it looks like you just swallow and repeat the same misinformation about Bible believing Scientists that you read from anti-God sites without checking the other side of the camp as the Bible also admonish,

Farki:

You won't get such glaring problems with the fossil records because it doesn't happen, the video I posted previously stated as much.

Of course, you may not read links that showed such anomalies in the geologic column that has forced the revision of dates of different phyla of animals if I post them but I will still post some of them anyway to show you that your hero Bill Nye was wrong and misinformation can be craftily made in a live debate where the opponent may not have the time to respond
Here, you have a bird in time of dinos. It got worse because ‘living fossils’ were found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5085686.stm

Here, you have a mammal in the time of reptiles

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6633459_Meng_J_Y_Hu_Y_Wang_X_Wang_and_C_Li_A_Mesozoic_gliding_mammal_from_northeastern_China_Nature

Others talk of foot print preceding the fossil itself with millions of years gap between them. Unfortunately, seem like the link has been taken down (it is actually embarrassing).
I only posted those two so as to avoid repetition of concept. These finds have forced revision for the time of 'evolution' of many class in the taxonomic rank (Everything must fit in to the evolutionary paradigm)

blueskies:
Pls fellow christians, where can i get detailed and accurate information on biblical history.

I'm interested in reading the whole biblical history and archaeology.
Theologians in the house pls?

There are many ministries that are dedicated to Christian Apologetics. There are those who deal with attacks from Islam, some deal with atheism generally, and some deal with evolution (it is important to note that there are many Christians, great Scientists, who agree with evolution but I find it not convincing because of sound scientific arguments from other great Bible believing Scientists which expose the fatal flaws in them)
I will just give a list of some of them (by their names). You can search them online to view their sites. One principle I employ is to read their 'Who we are', 'What we believe' statements to know where they stand concerning the Bible.
1. Answering Islam
2. Reasons to Believe
3. Creation Ministries International
4. Biologos
5. Christian think tank.
You could get links to other Christian sites that are specialized in a certain field of Christian Apologetics.
5 & 2 are rich in explaining Biblical history and presenting arguments for Christianity

Happy Surfing

Pelecius:

There are many ministries that are dedicated to Christian Apologetics. There are those who deal with attacks from Islam, some deal with atheism generally, and some deal with evolution (it is important to note that there are many Christians, great Scientists, who agree with evolution but I find it not convincing because of sound scientific arguments from other great Bible believing Scientists which expose the fatal flaws in them)
I will just give a list of some of them (by their names). You can search them online to view their sites. One principle I employ is to read their 'Who we are', 'What we believe' statements to know where they stand concerning the Bible.
1. Answering Islam
2. Reasons to Believe
3. Creation Ministries International
4. Biologos
5. Christian think tank.
You could get links to other Christian sites that are specialized in a certain field of Christian Apologetics.
5 & 2 are rich in explaining Biblical history and presenting arguments for Christianity

Happy Surfing

Thanks much

Eriokanmi:
I need you to teach me how evolution changed gorilla to man later due to adaptation and environmental changes but same doesn't work on gorillas transported from Nigeria to North America centuries ago but remained gorilas dispite the environmental changes and adaptation. Also,
I need you to teach me why slaves ferried across the Atlantic gave birth from one generation up to the 6th one as we have in the present day america but never had pointed nose or light skin in spite of adaptation and environmental changes. I'm waiting

Natural selection takes hundreds of generations to see changes since we humans have a long life span. Dogd breed faster and they have more physical differences between them compared to humans. If you took even your own kids abroad in 50 generations time your children will start looking dofferrnt from what you look like.

RomzyO:

Natural selection takes hundreds of generations to see changes since we humans have a long life span. Dogd breed faster and they have more physical differences between them compared to humans. If you took even your own kids abroad in 50 generations time your children will start looking dofferrnt from what you look like.

Lies. See those black Americans. Most of them have never been to Africa. Their parents were a product of slavery but see them. Most of them look like mushin boys so dark, despite the fact that their great, great grandparents left the shores of Africa over 400 years ago. Dogs chimps and apes of 500 years ago have refused revolve into homo sapiens. From the genealogy of Jesus Christ starting from Jesse and David to Jesus never changed. Evolution is a hoax.

sarjam05:
That reply wasn’t meant fir you but I’m real glad you’re scholastic enough to reply with constructive criticism.
Joesphus first you would be truthful about his historicity was never neutral. Maybe you need to understand the social conditions of literature. No man and I commit this fallacy boldly and eloquently. No man can write without bias!!! Even I writing this is biased. It’s like the problem of rhetoric where the sceptic knows he does not know but knows that he does not know. You Dey feel me.
Religious questions don’t have straight answers. Why do you believe Jesus existed? You would refer to Josephus. Now you see who is actually non sequitor. Jesus existed because Josephus said Jesus existed? That’s unwittingly dumb!!!
Once again please do you really know Josephus? Josephus had always being an active enemy of Nero. Never in his existence had he worked or loved him. He hated him for hating Jews how would he support his hate for Christians without being his friend. Now you see the problem in academia. The pot must call the kettle black in-order to be white. It’s a modus ponens operandi. Without it we would not have viewpoints and values. I am moral because my neighbor is immoral. Without him being immoral I am not moral. How would you know evil without good? Do you understand all this?
Josephus writing about Jesus is as much as other historians who wrote of him as a rabbi. Teacher. Magician. Yes. Many historians knew him as a magician. The Scandinavians knew him as a magician. Politician. Redeemer. War lord. The thief asked him to save himself before he can save the world. People in his time did not even support him. So if Jesus existed he is the messiah? If trump existed he is the antichrist as the Armageddon posited posit?
Bro this thing na just English. Only death can bring this to our knowledge of not it would always be mystery.
Science is different from humanities.
2 plus 2 is 4 is a scientific mathematical question. It is a straight answer. Does Jesus exist? Is this a humanities or social science or science question?
Once again. Not all Nigerians are gullible.

“That reply wasn’t meant fir you but I’m real glad you’re scholastic enough to reply with constructive criticism.”
Thank you for your kind words

“Joesphus first you would be truthful about his historicity was never neutral. Maybe you need to understand the social conditions of literature. No man and I commit this fallacy boldly and eloquently. No man can write without bias!!! Even I writing this is biased. It’s like the problem of rhetoric where the sceptic knows he does not know but knows that he does not know. You Dey feel me.”
My claim was not about his neutrality of his work in general, but neutrality in mentioning Christ, because he has nothing for or against Christianity. It can even be argued that he may be a hostile witness since he was working for the Romans (Vespasian) at the time of writing his works and the Roman government was hostile to Christianity at that point.
Again, the real point is that; he mentioning Christ and Christians is an independent source which corroborate the writings of the Bible, bearing witness that Christ was a historical figure

“Religious questions don’t have straight answers.”
Seem you are bent on making this claim and hence, committing fallacy of hasty generalization. I already explained how you could put it so as not to commit such fallacy.
“Why do you believe Jesus existed? You would refer to Josephus. Now you see who is actually non sequitor. Jesus existed because Josephus said Jesus existed? That’s unwittingly dumb!!!”
First of all, you seem not to understand the fallacy of non sequitur for writing this. You just committed another fallacy of question-begging epithet.
Again, you committed another fallacy called attacking straw-man. No one believed that Jesus existed just because Josephus said it only. That he mentioned it only add weight to the evidence provided by others. Luke himself has been categorized as a great historian because most of his mentions were found to be true. So if for Luke’s account alone, it is okay. But we have others such as JohnMark, John, and external witness of Tacitus who is seen as a great historian.
Now, using your logic that appealing to Josephus’ work would be “unwittingly dumb”; this would imply that one should not believe that Alexander the great existed because the first person who even wrote about him wrote after more than 600 years of his death before others started writing based on the first work. I’m believe that you wouldn’t agree that he didn’t exist. If yes, that should show that your logic is flawed again

“Once again please do you really know Josephus?”
I should be the one asking you this question
“Josephus had always being an active enemy of Nero. Never in his existence had he worked or loved him. He hated him for hating Jews how would he support his hate for Christians without being his friend. Now you see the problem in academia. The pot must call the kettle black in-order to be white. It’s a modus ponens operandi. Without it we would not have viewpoints and values. I am moral because my neighbor is immoral. Without him being immoral I am not moral. How would you know evil without good? Do you understand all this?”
Agreed! But he still worked with another Roman emperor (Vespasian. You may love to check it again so as not to make this mistake again). That alone nullifies every other thing that you wrote. Your premise is faulty, so your conclusion can not be logically sound

“Josephus writing about Jesus is as much as other historians who wrote of him as a rabbi. Teacher. Magician. Yes. Many historians knew him as a magician. The Scandinavians knew him as a magician. Politician. Redeemer. War lord. The thief asked him to save himself before he can save the world. People in his time did not even support him. So if Jesus existed he is the messiah? If trump existed he is the antichrist as the Armageddon posited posit?
Bro this thing na just English. Only death can bring this to our knowledge of not it would always be mystery.”
That is a red herring. It was not the point of argument in the first place. The argument is that ‘Josephus, Tacitus and others provided independent corroborating evidence that Christ was an historical figure on earth’

“Science is different from humanities.”
Sure. But again, that is not the main thrust of the argument.
“2 plus 2 is 4 is a scientific mathematical question. It is a straight answer.”
Well, 2 plus 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4 Mathematically except if the base is ASSUMED to be greater than 3, which shows that it could have more than one answer.
“Does Jesus exist? Is this a humanities or social science or science question?
Once again. Not all Nigerians are gullible”
All these are not really needed in this discussion anyway. It doesn’t prove that “not all Nigerians are gullible". Again, that someone rejects a statement even when all logically sound evidence points towards it is not proof that the person is not gullible
Not all Nigerians are gullible is a statement I agree with but the context in which you are using it is not really sound

Does it matter where I heard it?
As long as it has stood the test of time! And it's prophecies have come to pass unfailingly, and it's changing hearts till date. And if you wish to discuss reality in terms of quantum physics, I'll oblige you.

Used to know a guy who hated Christians and all faiths for that matter, gee didn't want any of the gospel to be true because his life wasn't just right. He's no more, but you're here, so let's talk

BeLookingIDIOT:

They told you that in your bible study classes abi?