Oro-Agba:
Thank you Kay17 for your patience and effort to articulate yourself this time. But though vast in the bible i can claim to be able to easily reference all verses under dispute. Can you remake your post indicating the reference of these statements, "The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof...", "According to the psalmist, snails melt.." so that i can respond to them also. I have noticed that many atheists don't even know where the passages and stories they claim are contentious can be found in scriptures,

I did on purpose omit the verses, so the "absurdity" will not appear divine. And that commonsense will easily be applicable.

Oro-Agba:
they only carry those arguments as tools borrowed from their mentors to harrass the theist about their belief.Some of these statements unfortunately are maliciously taken out of context in order to disparage the theist belief eg is the passage from Daniel4:11 that i dealt with yersterday refering to the "ends of the earth"

I feel that's an insult to our intelligence. Its totally unnecessarily, just focus on the arguments. Note that in such ancient times, the earth was thought to be flat, Jewish tradition indicates that too. To claim that "ends of the earth" was figurative as known today,is false.

Oro-Agba:
Now to some of the stories that im farmiliar with and know where they are i'll try to help you undestand

1. "In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old...." Yes science tells us that the universe is btw 15- 20 billion years from the big-bang. But so interesting is my personal findings that scientists are still bothered about what triggered the big-bang. The big-bang was an explosion of an infinitely dense particle of matter leading to the creation and expansion of the planets stars etc. Scientist are yet to explain where these material that exploded during the big-bang came from or for how long it has been existing before the appropriate conditions for the big-bang to occur was achieved. Hence it seems to me that scientists agree that the universe came to be by the aid (disintegration/ expansion) of something which was not part of the universe itself. Agreed?

No the big bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. As with the foundational assumptions of science, it would require a cause which is unknown, not God; except if unknown = God. Intense heat, friction, etc are not unnatural consequences of the behaviour of matter. Also the point of singularity is technically not part of the universe, but as a cause would, shares with the universe its substance. I do see the point of singularity as the universe, but much smaller and achieves the quality of simplicity.

Oro-Agba:
Now going to the bible account, i explained in my very first post the concept of 6 days, viz - à - viz 2Pet3:3, (please refer to that argument) the writer MAY not necessarily mean 6 earth-days considering for example that 1 pluto day is about 350 earth-years, if for the meantime we assume heaven is a planet in our galaxy much further away from pluto, then it is not impossible to achieve a scenario where 1 heaven-day is equal to 1000+ earth-years. Unless you can proof to me that the writer of Genesis definitely means 6 earth-days, you would be turning logic on its head to say the bible claims the earth was made in 6 earth days. If you look at Gen 1 from the understanding of 2Pet3:3, your claim that the bible said the earth was made in 6 earth days seems faulty.

I understand. We don't need to prove otherwise, since a literal and the clearest reading of the passage is 6 days. I thought an important attribute of God was that he wasn't bound by time.

Oro-Agba:
Furthermore, Genesis is generally refered to as the book of the beginning, but then, the begining of what? It is not necessarily the begining of the universe, but perhaps the begining of a new order, perhaps a renewal or refurbishment of the face of the earth. Take note that Gen1:1 says "in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. (verse2) the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the surface of the deep...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters" Between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 is a period/space of time long/short that the bible never told us about because he would not have created the heavens and the earth and left it as formless and void. some events are likely to have happened to render the initial creation formless and void. Also take note that according to the bible, WATER was not one of the things newly created, water already existed Gen1:3"...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters. And god said let there be..." This is further prove that the original creation of the universe happened long ago before the creation account described in Gen1:3-26. The space of time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 may be what science is helping us today to know, hence Gen1 did not in any way say that it is impossible for the earth to be 20billion years old. You see my friend how proper understanding can change your perception, that is why i don't downplay the bible despite my vasteness in science because i am aware of the applications and limitations of each tool.

Of course, that's a necessary implication in LIGHT modern science findings. I haven't read such defragmented book in a while.

Oro-Agba:
2. "Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved..." see brother you have the perception of instantaneous creation of man based on your interpretation of 6 earth-day creation in which man was made on the sixth day. But if you for example give my exposition a place in your mind for a moment that perharp the writer was using 6 heaven-days (equivalent to 6000 earth years as discussed earlier), that would mean that the creation account was not instantaneous at all. Also if you study Gen1 very well, the order of creation day-after day was vegetation then, water creatures, then birds, then land creatures and lastly man. Does this sequence not fit into a creation era that spans at least 6000 years and begins with the simple to the complex?
Hence you are right, humans were not created instantaneously, the bible didn't say so, man was like the latter part of a creation era spanning at least 6000years which began with creation of simple life forms gradually into the creation of more complex life forms.
Regarding your assertion that man was not made from dust and breath... that is what you need to proof to me. Take note that evolution is a theory just like gravity. A theory is not necessarily the truth, rather it is an acceptable explanation to a phenomenon based on observation/experimentation. I am sure that you are aware that newton's theory of gravity is not as useful in space mechanics as eistein's theory of relativity, nonetheless we still use newtonian mechanics with motion on earth because its explanations work here. So then what if the theory of evolution truly explains certain transitions but not all transitions( just the same way newton gravity fails when you start to study the mechanics of planetary bodies especially the singularity/black-hole). I put it to you to give me infallible proofs beyond loud assertions that man was not made from dust and breath.

We know the workings of science, one of its goals is to achieve consistency, an attribute shared by reality.

Oro-Agba:
3. "A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha." That is supernatural and i believe in it, or were you there in the past to witness it did not happen. Your duty now is to proof to me that the account did not happen. The fact you don't believe in something doesn't make it false, you have to proof it to be false in order to have audience.

4. "God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole." Also supernatural, can you proof it never happened?

LOL!! Supernatural is an absurd concept. It implies that an entity can behave beyond its own character/self, it implies that reality lacks consistency. Science, the concept of knowledge are null as a result.
The real question is "is it within the nature of man to resurrect from the dead as he speaks and walks?"

Oro-Agba:
"Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats Reproduce while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats" This account is in Gen30:30-40, but my brother did you take the pains to read just a bit further down Gen31:6-12, you will realize his use of spotted rod was merely symbolic, what happened was that god altered the mating pattern of the animals such that it was mostly the strong spotted males that mated with the females. And then scintifically, spotted males mate with females, most likely results are spotted baby goats. You see yourself now, most times what you atheist call absurdities are realities over which you need enlightenement. So why not ask questions more rather than outrightly condemn.

NoPe! All the flock including the white ones conceived speckled one while watching the rods. If he found the cattle weak, he removed the rods. The passage is very clear and totally false.

Hi Kay 17, intensity of work has kept me away from nairaland for a while that is why i have not been able to respond to your latest post. But now i'm a bit free.

Based on your responses to my post i make the following observations
1. you are aware that scientists have not fully grasped the origin of the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang
2. That the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang is composed of infinitely dense particles which has not been understood where they came from.
3. According to newtonian physics, a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform motion on a straight line except an external force acts on it. Hence the singularity (a point of infinitely dense particle) should remain like that eternally without an external influence. Hence for the singularity to beging to expand/explode, an external influence must have acted on it. what is this external influence?
4. There is indeed a begining of all things and also a force/personality which brought about the existence of the universe hence the atheist concept of infinite cause "no first cause" is itself not supported by science (point-3 above)

i have tried to explain to you that the creation story in Gen 1 is not the begining but can be viewed as a renewal of the face of the earth (there is an unstated period of time btw gen1:1 and gen1:3 which could be a long a 15billion years as proposed by science).Additionally, in the absence of contrary evidence from you, the creation of the earth gen1:3 did not take a literal 6 earth days but rather 6 heavenly days which is equivalent to about 1000 earth years (2Pet3:3). Hence i put it to you that this bible facts don't contradict the findings of science.

Hence since i have been able to severally explain how bible facts are not inconsistent with certain scientific observations (see chain of Q/A) except you raise new ones, and how science comes to establish at last what the bible has alluded to at first, i find it therefore in areas of conflict between bible and science to take sides with the bible since science is still growing and may in the futur come up to confirm what the bible already affirms.

Hence the bible says in the begining God created....., but science says in the begining the singularity expanded/exploded...take note like i pointed earlier that the singularity which already existed in a form cannot change form without an external influence( newtonian physics) hence i think science itself is coming up gradulally to the conclusion that in the begining a force/person initiated the expansion/explosion of ....Science will likely one day scientifically confirm the existence of God and at that point people like you would belief but may be too late.

Kay 17, i wonder why you would make the stetement below

"LOL!! Supernatural is an absurd concept. It implies that an entity can behave beyond its own character/self, it implies that reality lacks consistency. Science, the concept of knowledge are null as a result.The real question is "is it within the nature of man to resurrect from the dead as he speaks and walks?""

You asked wether it is in the nature of man to behave beyond its own character. How much do you know about the nature of man? I put it to you that the real nature of man is incorruptible and not supposed to die until sin came in through adam (man was initially designed to live forever). However scientifically i know you are aware that it is in the nature of man to self-heal, that is why some can get healed of minor malaria, cough etc over time without using drugs by the action of the body's natural defence system (antibodies/antigens). The purpose of drugs most times is to activate/energise these antigens/antibodies to counter the intruding parasites.another self-healing mechanism of the body can be observed in the formation of clots on wounds to prevent further bleeding.
However even though the body has a natural healing process, do you think the body unaided can self-heal from typhoid, cancer, aids without use of drugs? The answer is YES, but the fact is that the rate at which these diseases destroy the body is greater than the rate at which the body's natural defense mechanism can withstand, hence you may be dead b/4 the body is able to self heal and that is why drugs are used to help the body's existing defence dept.

This illustration serves to show that an external element might atimes be necessary to help the body activate a natural propensity. And like i showed earlier man was initially created to live forever, but lost this through sin, however through an external drug (supernatural force/ miracle) a man that looses his life can be reactivated back to life.

Oro-Agba:
Hi Kay 17, intensity of work has kept me away from nairaland for a while that is why i have not been able to respond to your latest post. But now i'm a bit free.

Based on your responses to my post i make the following observations
1. you are aware that scientists have not fully grasped the origin of the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang
2. That the singularity that expanded/exploded during the big-bang is composed of infinitely dense particles which has not been understood where they came from.
3. According to newtonian physics, a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform motion on a straight line except an external force acts on it. Hence the singularity (a point of infinitely dense particle) should remain like that eternally without an external influence. Hence for the singularity to beging to expand/explode, an external influence must have acted on it. what is this external influence?

Science doesn't know whats before the point of singularity. Its an unknown. The external influence was probably temperature.

Oro agba: 4. There is indeed a begining of all things and also a force/personality which brought about the existence of the universe hence the atheist concept of infinite cause "no first cause" is itself not supported by science (point-3 above)

Your premise is faulty and leads to an infinite regress.

Oro agba: i have tried to explain to you that the creation story in Gen 1 is not the begining but can be viewed as a renewal of the face of the earth (there is an unstated period of time btw gen1:1 and gen1:3 which could be a long a 15billion years as proposed by science).Additionally, in the absence of contrary evidence from you, the creation of the earth gen1:3 did not take a literal 6 earth days but rather 6 heavenly days which is equivalent to about 1000 earth years (2Pet3:3). Hence i put it to you that this bible facts don't contradict the findings of science.

Hence since i have been able to severally explain how bible facts are not inconsistent with certain scientific observations (see chain of Q/A) except you raise new ones, and how science comes to establish at last what the bible has alluded to at first, i find it therefore in areas of conflict between bible and science to take sides with the bible since science is still growing and may in the futur come up to confirm what the bible already affirms.

Hence the bible says in the begining God created....., but science says in the begining the singularity expanded/exploded...take note like i pointed earlier that the singularity which already existed in a form cannot change form without an external influence( newtonian physics) hence i think science itself is coming up gradulally to the conclusion that in the begining a force/person initiated the expansion/explosion of ....Science will likely one day scientifically confirm the existence of God and at that point people like you would belief but may be too late.

Where does your premise that the Bible contains only the Truth come from?

@ Oro Agba,

I can see that you are back, did you happen to check on the websites I gave you...? I am sure you didn't. Typical!

Oro-Agba:

You asked wether it is in the nature of man to behave beyond its own character. How much do you know about the nature of man? I put it to you that the real nature of man is incorruptible and not supposed to die until sin came in through adam (man was initially designed to live forever). However scientifically i know you are aware that it is in the nature of man to self-heal, that is why some can get healed of minor malaria, cough etc over time without using drugs by the action of the body's natural defence system (antibodies/antigens). The purpose of drugs most times is to activate/energise these antigens/antibodies to counter the intruding parasites.another self-healing mechanism of the body can be observed in the formation of clots on wounds to prevent further bleeding.
However even though the body has a natural healing process, do you think the body unaided can self-heal from typhoid, cancer, aids without use of drugs? The answer is YES, but the fact is that the rate at which these diseases destroy the body is greater than the rate at which the body's natural defense mechanism can withstand, hence you may be dead b/4 the body is able to self heal and that is why drugs are used to help the body's existing defence d

Chai! The above post goes to show how deluded you are. Somethings simply cannot be defended, so stop trying to defend ressurecting dead bodies, it makes you sound very foolish.

The above illustration is just a cheap attempt. Self healing is not the same thing as regenerating dead limbs. For example, even though the body self-heals have you ever seen an amputated limb regenerating again? Never! Because it against the laws of nature so is a dead body coming back to life.