Aemmyjah:


U yourself have seen how Jaephoenix has been contradicting himself

A doctor that says that childbirth is not painful in women
Later he said he may have been referring to goats
Shrug

I stated scientific facts, not an hypothesis or obsolete fact

Sorry Aemmyjah, but you have not "stated scientific facts".

What you constantly state is what you've read in the Holy Bible, which is in no way a science book, and which you have not bothered to scientifically scrutinise. And what I see is you constantly contradicting your own self and misrepresenting others.

Perhaps consider not telling others what they should see and instead invest in reading the thread with open honest eyes. I have the feeling you'd see yourself.

budaatum:


Sorry Aemmyjah, but you have not "stated scientific facts".

What you constantly state is what you've read in the Holy Bible, which is in no way a science book, and which you have not bothered to scientifically scrutinise. And what I see is you constantly contradicting your own self and misrepresenting others.

Perhaps consider not telling others what they should see and instead invest in reading the thread with open honest eyes. I have the feeling you'd see yourself.

Yes
Bible is not a science book but what it states regarding science is proven fact

It describes the water cycle
The earth hanging on nothing
A round earth
Animals and animals and plants producing according to their own kinds

Which one is unscientific?

Aemmyjah:


U yourself have seen how Jaephoenix has been contradicting himself

A doctor that says that childbirth is not painful in women
Later he said he may have been referring to goats
Shrug

I stated scientific facts, not an hypothesis or obsolete fact

Consider the evidence as shown in the images

Jaephoenix
Thorrn
LordReed

Looking at the mathematical probability of life or DNA arising by chance shows it is basically impossible
No scientist can beat his chest and say the DNA is a product of mindless chance unless he does not know anything about genetics. It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

"Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture. "

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable
from a miracle."

Aemmyjah:


Consider the evidence as shown in the images

Jaephoenix
Thorrn
LordReed

Looking at the mathematical probability of life or DNA arising by chance shows it is basically impossible
No scientist can beat his chest and say the DNA is a product of mindless chance unless he does not know anything about genetics. It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

"Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence . The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture. "

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable
from a miracle."

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."


Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement:



"When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic."

Yet, I am stupid and a dundee and someone who never did Biology in secondary school but claims to be a Biologist
I love sciences and I question it too. The more I study nature, the environment, the human body, I see the fingerprint of an intelligent designer, not a product of mindless process. Galileo and Newton were once considered stupid when they come up with their own concept. Both were religious people and their love for science did not waiver their belief in God.

I agree with the above and below
During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.



- As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.



- It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.



- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

jaephoenix:

See as a woman dey give you spanking for debate. And you call yourself a lawyer. Lol 😆

See how fool no know say me man be dat. Secondly, him dey beat me yet na Im dey well upanda. You be the living definition of fool.

jaephoenix:

Lol. I can equally pull up many posts by atheists stating christians are toxic. Doesn't mean anything.
I'm talking about you. Many people including your fellow christards say you're toxic

You atheists are already the world's champion of toxic liars, so there is nothing for you to do.

Aemmyjah:


Consider the evidence as shown in the images

Jaephoenix
Thorrn
LordReed

Looking at the mathematical probability of life or DNA arising by chance shows it is basically impossible
No scientist can beat his chest and say the DNA is a product of mindless chance unless he does not know anything about genetics. It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

"Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture. "

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable
from a miracle."

Simply saying DNA is complex therefore it didn't occur by chance is evidence of nothing but your own incredulity. How complex chemicals, of which DNA is one, has been and is still being studied, with all results showing that they can form by natural processes.

DNA is not a code, it is a chemical and it behaves exactly as any other chemical would behave, reacting or not reacting in the presence of other chemicals. There is no magic to it beyond its complexity, which means millions of reactions are taking place constantly. Calling it code is just an attempt to insert agency where it doesn't belong.

Michael Denton is a proponent of Intelligent Design so it's not surprising he would make such a statement. ID was destroyed in court when they tried to push it as a part of science curriculum, it simply is a bad unwarranted conclusion to any of the scientific facts we currently have.

Aemmyjah:


Yes
Bible is not a science book but what it states regarding science is proven fact

It describes the water cycle
The earth hanging on nothing
A round earth
Animals and animals and plants producing according to their own kinds

Which one is unscientific?

This can only be said by a person who missed junior secondary school science or just wants to peddle the Bible they lack understanding of, and it shows ignorance of science and the Bible.

budaatum:


This can only be said by a person who missed junior secondary school science or just wants to peddle the Bible they lack understanding of, and it shows ignorance of science and the Bible.

Instead of dispute what the person has presented, you are tackling the person without evidence. Yet you call me ignorant

LordReed:


Simply saying DNA is complex therefore it didn't occur by chance is evidence of nothing but your own incredulity. How complex chemicals, of which DNA is one, has been and is still being studied, with all results showing that they can form by natural processes.

DNA is not a code, it is a chemical and it behaves exactly as any other chemical would behave, reacting or not reacting in the presence of other chemicals. There is no magic to it beyond its complexity, which means millions of reactions are taking place constantly. Calling it code is just an attempt to insert agency where it doesn't belong.

Michael Denton is a proponent of Intelligent Design so it's not surprising he would make such a statement. ID was destroyed in court when they tried to push it as a part of science curriculum, it simply is a bad unwarranted conclusion to any of the scientific facts we currently have.

What about the mathematical probability?

Aemmyjah:


Instead of dispute what the person has presented, you are tackling the person without evidence. Yet you call me ignorant

You have sufficiently been tackled with evidence which you've disregarded, and you have repeatedly tackled everyone who's presented it you with lies and insults, so it's a bit late for you to start crying at being tackled, don't you think?

How you say what you say are your fruits, which we are advised to know you by and is evidence your God exists, and I am suggesting to you what your fruits show.

Aemmyjah:

What about the mathematical probability?

What about the mathematical probability? Is low probability equal to impossible?

Aemmyjah:



You must see something to believe it exists. Yes or No?
I've not seen air
I've not seen my mind
I've not seen the atmosphere
I can't see or hear or feel the rotation of the Earth
I did not see the corona virus (many of still believe it never existed excluding myself)
If I go to my village and tell the oldest man that people can and are traveling alive to other planet like Mars and returning alive and he asks me to demonstrate it to him there or atleast show the journey from the starting point to the destination and return to the earth (which is not available) and I'm not able to do that (I have not even seen or watch any such video myself but I believe it is happening) . Does that mean that no one has actually never gone to Mars and returned? Remember, he's just being critically-minded like you
There are many things we do not see. We just hear it and we accept them as true


But your argument does not invalidate the truth that order cannot arise from chaos or mindless process

Thank you Dtruthspeaker, I saw your last comment where you mentioned me

You asked a question, I answered you, you disregarded it and went ahead to preach your already prepared sermon even though I saw through it and stopped you in your tracks. My brother you are wrong. Seeing is not evidence, what you see must be evidenced and that goes for other things you cannot see. What about feel? What of smell what of taste? All these must still be subjected to scrutiny and evidenced otherwise why not believe in unicorns and dragons too.

Dtruthspeaker:


You do not believe Chris because you know he is like you man. But from the beginning Jesus was not man like you. For like you and Chris were born by the sex and sperm of man Jesus was not.

Even before the arrival of Jesus, we were forewarned that He would come avisiting.

So the proof is already there if anyone indeed wanted to have them.

The Chris that I see I do not believe. Is it the Jesus I have not seen before that I should believe? When I have seen or not seen every claim must be subjected to scrutiny and evidenced beyond reasonable doubt.

Also claims are not proof. The Bible is not proof, it's a claim. And the claims it made are not exclusive to it. I know you think the Bible is proof the only Godly book that exists but it's not...it's not even godly.

kimco:


You asked a question, I answered you, you disregarded it and went ahead to preach your already prepared sermon even though I saw through it and stopped you in your tracks. My brother you are wrong. Seeing is not evidence, what you see must be evidenced and that goes for other things you cannot see. What about feel? What of smell what of taste? All these must still be subjected to scrutiny and evidenced otherwise why not believe in unicorns and dragons too.

Many, after all, saw 'miracles' performed.

budaatum:


Many, after all, many saw 'miracles' performed.

av got poems 4 sale

Aemmyjah:


Evolution gave us sense of good and evil shey

Answer my question

If your child wants to find a purpose as a serial killer or terrorist. It is ok shey?

Your philosophy has left you with unreliable guidance
Keep wailing

But I asked you, somewhere up there, how people not connected to your sky-daddy find purpose, and you didn't respond..

You continue to babble about Evolution: I was willing--- that we analyze biblical claims against scientific theory, and I asked you to first clarify your creation theory as per Gen1&2. You haven't.

You argue for "intelligent design," but can you defend or at least shed light on the numerous discrepancies that come with your "Made in Heaven" arguments?

kkins25:


But I asked you, somewhere up there, how people not connected to your sky-daddy find purpose, and you didn't respond..

You continue to babble about Evolution: I was willing--- that we analyze biblical claims against scientific theory, and I asked you to first clarify your creation theory as per Gen1&2. You haven't.

You argue for "intelligent design," but can you defend or at least shed light on the numerous discrepancies that come with your "Made in Heaven" arguments?

Stupidity is different from critical thinking bros
Evolution itself is based on faulty hypothesis as I mentioned earlier
If you're too dull to distinguish any intelligent design, it is not my problem but yours. If I am really ill and I go to visit a carpenter, many will insult me and ask me to visit a doctor. Why? Cos doctors understand the design and order of the body. did all that design and order arise from chaos?


As evolutionists claim, do you believe that human intelligence arise from the disruptions in the brain of an ancestor?

Regarding Genesis 1 and 2, there's no conflict. The same person made them and he made man first. Why not ask evolutionists how male and female and their different chromosomes could be designed by chance

When I do not respond to you, it's usually cos your line of reasoning or question is just foolish. It is like going to a field to play ball and your opponent shoots into any direction, even outside the field and he shouts GOAL! and counts scores against you.
Same goes with someone who claims another person is wrong, instead of bringing his own facts, he just talks nonsense and he's keeping scores and points. Irrelevant!

LordReed:


What about the mathematical probability? Is low probability equal to impossible?

10 to the power of 40,000?

budaatum:


You have sufficiently been tackled with evidence which you've disregarded, and you have repeatedly tackled everyone who's presented it you with lies and insults, so it's a bit late for you to start crying at being tackled, don't you think?

How you say what you say are your fruits, which we are advised to know you by and is evidence your God exists, and I am suggesting to you what your fruits show.

That everything in universe....
That something cannot emerge from nothing is a lie shey?

De play

Aemmyjah:


10 to the power of 40,000?

The probability of your dad meeting your mum and having you is 1 in 102,685,000, yet here you are. Low probability is not equal to impossible. Do you know how many billion planets there are in our galaxy alone, not to talk of other galaxies? Why is the low probability based on that sheer massive number perplexing.

LordReed:


The probability of your dad meeting your mum and having you is 1 in 102,685,000, yet here you are. [/b]Low probability is not equal to impossible. Do you know how many billion planets there are in our galaxy alone, not to talk of other galaxies? Why is the low probability based on that sheer massive number perplexing.

Can you prove the highlighted?
Besides, it does not match what I was even talking about
Humans will surely meet each other to copulate and have children. It's a normal [b]fact
A valid comparison you'd have come close to is hiw a computer language could come up by itself without a programmer

kkins25:


But I asked you, somewhere up there, how people not connected to your sky-daddy find purpose, and you didn't respond..

You continue to babble about Evolution: I was willing--- that we analyze biblical claims against scientific theory, and I asked you to first clarify your creation theory as per Gen1&2. You haven't.

You argue for "intelligent design," but can you defend or at least shed light on the numerous discrepancies that come with your "Made in Heaven" arguments?

Keep dodging my question
Evolution has made your life purposeless and meaningless

Will you approve your son choosing to become a terrorist? Yes or No

Aemmyjah:


Can you prove the highlighted?
Besides, it does not match what I was even talking about
Humans will surely meet each other to copulate and have children. It's a normal fact
A valid comparison you'd have come close to is hiw a computer language could come up by itself without a programmer

You can calculate that probability I stated. Can you prove the one you stated?

Humans will surely meet just like chemicals will surely react with one another.

Again DNA is not a code so no the analogy doesn't fit.

Aemmyjah:
A valid comparison you'd have come close to is how a computer language could come up by itself without a programmer

This is false!

Aemmyjah:



Stupidity is different from critical thinking bros

okay!

Evolution itself is based on a faulty hypothesis as I mentioned earlier

Show me where God created dogs and cats. Have you heard of the Liger? Kindly show us how God created that too.

If you're too dull to distinguish any intelligent design, it is not my problem but yours. If I am really ill and I go to visit a carpenter, many will insult me and ask me to visit a doctor. Why? Cos doctors understand the design and order of the body. Did all that design and order arise from chaos?

What design? Do you think the universe is some form of aesthetic place? Because you get rendered visions of it on your screen? hohohoh...

As evolutionists claim, do you believe that human intelligence arises from the disruptions in the brain of an ancestor?

How then do you explain children born with autism, down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Cancer, and so on? Shey there were created from heaven.

Regarding Genesis 1 and 2, there's no conflict. The same person made them and he made man first. Why not ask evolutionists how male and female and their different chromosomes could be designed by chance

.

1. Did he make them, man and woman, on the same day or not? Were they, man and woman, the first to be created or the last?
2. How do we have different races and skin colors?

When I do not respond to you, it's usually cos your line of reasoning or question is just foolish. It is like going to a field to play ball and your opponent shoots into any direction, even outside the field and he shouts GOAL! and counts scores against you.

Says the guy who is using Evolution inappropriately. Mind you, Abiogenesis is a fact.


You are just dodging bullet oga. You don lose this argument like 10 pages ago.

Aemmyjah:


Can you prove the highlighted?
Besides, it does not match what I was even talking about
Humans will surely meet each other to copulate and have children. It's a normal fact
A valid comparison you'd have come close to is hiw a computer language could come up by itself without a programmer

There are 100+ million women in the country, But your daddy met mum. You don't even understand SSS mathematics, and you're arguing with us here. oh, Aemmyjah! Calm down so we can uplift you from religious ignorance to religious literacy.

A computer program is not perfect, neither can it's creation ever end because the creators know they do not understand it all. This means when the program messes up, they don't accuse it of SIN.

God on the other hand is a different kind of creator because he declared "and it was good." Meaning from his perspective creation is good. But that didn't turn out well, did it? Hopefully you get the point?

I wonder, did God create HIV within the 6 days? How about H.Plylori(stomach ulcer pathogen), did God create that too? or Malara's P. Falciparum? That too?

Evolution is false. Let's pretend to agree, can you then explain why we are taller today than our ancestors of 100 years ago. Evolution is false, but have you sat your lazy brain to wonder if genotypes AS, and SS where created by God? Or do you agree with us that God's creation wasn't perfect?

Aemmyjah:
That everything in universe....
That something cannot emerge from nothing is a lie shey?

De play

What did God emerge from?

The resurrection of the saints story: why didn't other gospel write about it.

We need to understand that each gospel was to a target audience with specific objectives in the mind of the writers.

First let's understand gospel of Mathew. This gospel was written to Christian Jews, the writer wanted to show that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the old testament. One of his evidence was depicting Jesus as fulfilling the messianic prophesies in the old testament.
Mathew referenced the resurrection saints story as fulfilment of the prophesy given to Ezekiel 37 about dead bones coming alive.
Mathew wrote the saints came out of their tombs after the resurrection of Jesus. This proofs Jesus is the Messiah spoken about in Psalm 16 and 17 who will fulfil the resurrection of the dead whose name were found in the book according to Daniel 12.
Mathew wrote extensively about Jesus fulfilling multiple old testament scriptures to show he is the Messiah.

Gospel of Mark was written to gentiles who had no doubt Jesus is the messiah. The gentiles believed Jesus is divine and truly resurrected, there was no point reiterating to them what they already believed. Moreover, they were not familiar with the old
testament scriptures and wouldn't grasp the relevance of such messianic references.

Luke wrote based on what he was careful to thoroughly investigate and scrutinise. He will only write claims he was confident he had the details. Luke 1.1-3.
Further more, Luke was a physician and this may have influenced what he feels confident to write.
As I said in my previous thread, claims of miraculous resurrections even in modern times may not be what they seem unless we have all the facts which we dont have most times.

The gospel of John was purely about the christophany and christology of Jesus. It answers the question how is Jesus divine?
The gospel was a response to growing gnostic ideology and heresy about Jesus in the later half of the 1st century.
As that time, there was no doubt that Jesus is the actual Messiah. Repeating the claim will be inconsequential to Christians at that time.

SIRTee15:


Luke wrote based on what he was careful to thoroughly investigate and scrutinise. He will only write claims he was confident he had the details. Luke 1.1-3.
Further more, Luke was a physician and this may have influenced what he feels confident to write.
As I said in my previous thread, claims of miraculous resurrections even in modern times may not be what they seem unless we have all the facts which we dont have most times.

Just the first verse of Luke already tells you the Authors 😂

SIRTee15:


The gospel of John was purely about the christophany and christology of Jesus. It answers the question how is Jesus divine?
The gospel was a response to growing gnostic ideology and heresy about Jesus in the later half of the 1st century.
As that time, there was no doubt that Jesus is the actual Messiah. Repeating the claim will be inconsequential to Christians at that time.

John, a fisherman was able to write that gnostic work in Greek after not getting burnt by hot oil?
Don't you think there's too many coincidence?

SIRTee15:
The resurrection of the saints story: why didn't other gospel write about it.


First let's understand gospel of Mathew. This gospel was written to Christian Jews, the writer wanted to show that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the old testament.

None of the disciples called themselves Christians but nasoreans.
It was in Antioch where Paul and others was called CHRESTIAN. The people in Jerusalem were never called that.