DappaD:


If you’re not pained to the heart, you won’t reply to one message twice.
Are Kangaroos the only the animals under the subclass Marsupialia? If not, are Marsupials only found in Australia? You wanted to use fossil records to judge whether an event occurred or not meanwhile there are still a lot of blank spaces that you must fill if we must tow that direction.

its all about being pained, I want to learn new things. I don’t want to win the argument. Get that.
Your point is that, if fossil records are not accurate then marsupials joined Noah ark? Is that an accurate logic?

Do you have evidence that marsupials lives outside of Australia?
If you do, present it

DappaD:


The bolded has already answered your question for you. If that’s still not okay, then there’s a blank space for you to fill.

So now we have evidence that humans have not found all fossils, show us the evidence that marsupials ever lives outside of Australia.

Read my statement again. Can you see how inconsistent your logic is?
Because humans have not found all fossils is not an evidence for marsupials joining Noah’s ark.

FatherOfJesus:
So now we have evidence that humans have not found all fossils, show us the evidence that marsupials ever lives outside of Australia. Read my statement again. Can you see how inconsistent your logic is?
Because humans have not found all fossils is not an evidence for marsupials joining Noah’s ark.

Perhaps you’re unaware of the RH fallacy you just committed. Your initial focus was on fossil records and now that you’ve seen the other side of the story that humans haven’t discovered all the remains/fossils of ancient creatures, you’ve boldly gone ahead to change your whole narrative?
Pathetic I must say because I wonder who’s the one shifting goalposts here.

FatherOfJesus:
its all about being pained, I want to learn new things. I don’t want to win the argument. Get that.
Your point is that, if fossil records are not accurate then marsupials joined Noah ark? Is that an accurate logic?
Do you have evidence that marsupials lives outside of Australia?
If you do, present it

You skipped a very vital and important question yet again.

DappaD:

Are Kangaroos the only the animals under the subclass Marsupialia? If not, are Marsupials only found in Australia?

Your stance has been hinged on the notion that Marsupials are only found in Australia and that’s why they couldn’t enter Noah’s ark because of the distance between the Middle East and Australia. I wonder how you even reason, despite the several modes of transportation available at that time then you still asked this baseless question but let’s allow it. Now please answer the above questions? If we ever get to find out that the reverse is the case, then we can throw out your entire argument, yes?

It's exactly as I said it. You can't understand even if you try very hard to make sense of it because God is not a phenomena. He's not a theory, he's not fiction and He's not fantasy.


You will only find him when you are ready too. At a time you least expect it and only when you keep an open mind. Wisdom comes to those who seek it and not to those who think they are already wise.

You have to be foolish to become wise, if not you can never know. Leave all you have learnt, leave all you think you know and keep an open mind to accept the realities of things that do not make sense. It will all materialize and the dots will be connected. You don't need anybody to provide answers, you just need to open your mind.

You don't need a bible because then of what use will it be to you, when it only gives you more questions. You need to keep an open mind each day you go out and come back home. The answer is right in front of you, but you are not seeing, you are just looking.


The immaterial will be made material. Only if you accept you don't know and you want to know.

FatherOfJesus:
I

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. If you replace every point where the Bible mentioned God with the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you immediately start seeing this topic from a critical point.

For example Genesis chapter 1 vs 1:
In the beginning the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth...and the Spirit of the Invisible Pink Unicorn was hovering over the waters. And the Invisible Pink Unicorn said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Invisible Pink Unicorn saw that the light was good, and she separated the light from the darkness.

On what basis would you now say that the Bible God exist and the Invisible Pink Unicorn � doesn’t? And what if i say one need faith to experience the evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn

This is the problem with existence of God and why your personal experience doesn’t count as it can be tinted with bias. There’s no basis to say that your own god is the real god over others. It’s just your opinion and not evidential.

FatherOfJesus:
Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, data, asking questions, not assuming the answers in advance. So we test, we test again. Hypotheses that fail the tests wind up discarded. If we disprove an idea, we leave it behind. But this cannot be said about religion.

Science does not have an anti-God bias. Remember, science depends on observation. Can one observe God? No. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that God works in arbitrary and sometimes contrary ways, almost as if to frustrate the attempt to find him and understand him, this is one of the measures religion take to manipulate narratives to justify their conclusion. Since science can’t find any evidence of God to study, and everything we do study appears (evidence!) to have natural causes and to be natural phenomenon, God simply cannot be a part of any hypothesis or any conclusion.

Nor is science “pro-evolution.” Evolution is “change over time.” Populations change. Science studies those changes. It can’t deny that change has happened, because that is what the evidence clearly says. It isn’t a “bias” to accept that things change, including populations of organisms. We see it in the laboratory. We see it in the fossil record. We see it in farming techniques. We see it in the genetic records. It would be a “bias” to deny it.

What your religious teachers are trying to do to you is to make you come to your conclusions first, then try to find evidence that supports it later. If you can’t find evidence that supports your conclusions, then you make stuff up, or lie about the evidence, lie about the science, lie about the scientists, lie about your own credentials. Creationists — especially the ones writing the books, collecting your money — lie. It is their livelihood. They literally make a good living by lying.

I’m someone who likes to see evidence in all ramifications without special pleading for the existence of a god. If god has to exist then there must be a testable way to measure that and that’s why I would always tilt toward atheism and believe science most of the times. If a structure that follows evidence like science makes you uncomfortable, it means there’s something wrong with your belief system and you are trying very hard to cling to it.

You abandoned religion for reasons known to you however you spend your time thinking you ought to "explain" yourself and your rationale to some of the very same religious people you supposedly left behind?
And when I talk of those of you here remaining slaves to religion, una go bare claws as if I dey suggest deworming or something more atrocious.

FatherOfJesus:
The purpose of argument is not to be right but to find out what is right.
It doesn’t matter what you think is right. You argue like someone who wants to be right and does not want to learn. I don’t engage in such arguments of the blind.

As much as I don’t believe in the existence of God doesn’t mean that I believe everything in science. The reason for not believing in god is because there’s no evidence for it, people like you distort facts, deduce conclusions before providing evidence and then ignore vehemently any form of evidence against what you believe because you only want to be right irrespective of what’s right. I’m grown beyond that.

I’m not in for that abeg, I would attend to other mature opponents who are interested in sharing and accepting ideas instead of wanting to be right.

That is his MO, he will come, say something then declare himself victor without even waiting to engage in reasonable discussion.

DappaD:



You skipped a very vital and important question yet again.


Your stance has been hinged on the notion that Marsupials are only found in Australia and that’s why they couldn’t enter Noah’s ark because of the distance between the Middle East and Australia. I wonder how you even reason, despite the several modes of transportation available at that time then you still asked this baseless question but let’s allow it. Now please answer the above questions? If we ever get to find out that the reverse is the case, then we can throw out your entire argument, yes?

I'll ask the other question, how did kangaroos get to Australia without leaving a trail of fossilised kangaroo bones?

LordReed:


I'll ask the other question, how did kangaroos get to Australia without leaving a trail of fossilised kangaroo bones?

Welcome! Permit me to bring you up to speed. This question below already made the OP see the faults in his reasoning. Can you answer them yes or no? If no, then your own question has been answered by yourself.

DappaD:

Or can you categorically state that humans today have discovered all forms of life on land and in the sea? Including the fossils of ALL the ones that went extinct and died in the time past both on land and in the sea? If the answer is no, then your question is already solved.

Then again, for you to think that transportation from one place to another is a modern invention really says a lot about how most of you guys reason.

DappaD:


Welcome! Permit me to bring you up to speed. This question below already made the OP see the faults in his reasoning. Can you answer them yes or no? If no, then your own question has been answered by yourself.



Then again, for you to think that transportation from one place to another is a modern invention really says a lot about how most of you guys reason.

There were 8 people in the world after the flood which of them travelled with kangaroos to Australia?

LordReed:


There were 8 people in the world after the flood which of them travelled with kangaroos to Australia?

Fine then, have it your way. Let’s remain in the puddle of unending questions.

DappaD:

Or can you categorically state that humans today have discovered all forms of life on land and in the sea? Including the fossils of ALL the ones that went extinct and died in the time past both on land and in the sea? If the answer is no, then your question is already solved.

I see you’ve taken after the OP in committing the unmistakable RH fallacy.

DappaD:


Fine then, have it your way. Let’s remain in the puddle of unending questions.



I see you’ve taken after the OP in committing the unmistakable RH fallacy.

This isn't about what I am claiming but what you are claiming. I am asking you to support what you claim with evidence but instead you're deflecting to some other thing. Show us how kangaroos got to Australia, if you say they were transported then back it up. Its that simple.

DappaD:


Perhaps you’re unaware of the RH fallacy you just committed. Your initial focus was on fossil records and now that you’ve seen the other side of the story that humans haven’t discovered all the remains/fossils of ancient creatures, you’ve boldly gone ahead to change your whole narrative?
Pathetic I must say because I wonder who’s the one shifting goalposts here.

The initial focus is to prove that marsupials lived outside of Australia which was a product of your comment that Bible is not antiscoience.
That was the initial debate, you were shifting goal post until we got here and that’s because you don’t have evidence.
That’s not scientific, it won’t be this difficult to provide evidence if the Bible really is not anti science

DappaD:



You skipped a very vital and important question yet again.


Your stance has been hinged on the notion that Marsupials are only found in Australia and that’s why they couldn’t enter Noah’s ark because of the distance between the Middle East and Australia. I wonder how you even reason, despite the several modes of transportation available at that time then you still asked this baseless question but let’s allow it. Now please answer the above questions? If we ever get to find out that the reverse is the case, then we can throw out your entire argument, yes?

Just provide evidence please.
I’m tired of the back of forth because of your inability to substantiate anything with evidence

LordReed:


That is his MO, he will come, say something then declare himself victor without even waiting to engage in reasonable discussion.

Every single statement her makes is fallacious.

peggywebbs:
It's exactly as I said it. You can't understand even if you try very hard to make sense of it because God is not a phenomena. He's not a theory, he's not fiction and He's not fantasy.


You will only find him when you are ready too. At a time you least expect it and only when you keep an open mind. Wisdom comes to those who seek it and not to those who think they are already wise.

You have to be foolish to become wise, if not you can never know. Leave all you have learnt, leave all you think you know and keep an open mind to accept the realities of things that do not make sense. It will all materialize and the dots will be connected. You don't need anybody to provide answers, you just need to open your mind.

You don't need a bible because then of what use will it be to you, when it only gives you more questions. You need to keep an open mind each day you go out and come back home. The answer is right in front of you, but you are not seeing, you are just looking.


The immaterial will be made material. Only if you accept you don't know and you want to know.

Babe, you are not making a substantial point, you are giving me reasons why you must believe in the delusion.

FatherOfJesus:
Every single statement her makes is fallacious.

The best defender of the Bible is budaatum who accuses others of neither reading nor understanding the Bible.
But I still condemn the Bible because those accusations can't withstand the fire in my head.
Even the accusation of me being lazy can't stop my condemnation of the Bible.
Furk the Bible!!

FatherOfJesus:
Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, data, asking questions, not assuming the answers in advance. So we test, we test again. Hypotheses that fail the tests wind up discarded. If we disprove an idea, we leave it behind. But this cannot be said about religion.

Science does not have an anti-God bias. Remember, science depends on observation. Can one observe God? No. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that God works in arbitrary and sometimes contrary ways, almost as if to frustrate the attempt to find him and understand him, this is one of the measures religion take to manipulate narratives to justify their conclusion. Since science can’t find any evidence of God to study, and everything we do study appears (evidence!) to have natural causes and to be natural phenomenon, God simply cannot be a part of any hypothesis or any conclusion.

Nor is science “pro-evolution.” Evolution is “change over time.” Populations change. Science studies those changes. It can’t deny that change has happened, because that is what the evidence clearly says. It isn’t a “bias” to accept that things change, including populations of organisms. We see it in the laboratory. We see it in the fossil record. We see it in farming techniques. We see it in the genetic records. It would be a “bias” to deny it.

What your religious teachers are trying to do to you is to make you come to your conclusions first, then try to find evidence that supports it later. If you can’t find evidence that supports your conclusions, then you make stuff up, or lie about the evidence, lie about the science, lie about the scientists, lie about your own credentials. Creationists — especially the ones writing the books, collecting your money — lie. It is their livelihood. They literally make a good living by lying.

I’m someone who likes to see evidence in all ramifications without special pleading for the existence of a god. If god has to exist then there must be a testable way to measure that and that’s why I would always tilt toward atheism and believe science most of the times. If a structure that follows evidence like science makes you uncomfortable, it means there’s something wrong with your belief system and you are trying very hard to cling to it.

I mean, I mostly agree with you OP but I don't get how that necessary ends in Atheism.

Paul praised the Christians who instead of believing blindly returned to the scriptures to cross reference his claims before they believed. My parents taught me to do this at an early age so for me it mostly ended with me looking up some Theology in form of videos, articles and books and most of the issues have been resolved.

Side effect of this is I don't take our loud mouth pastors seriously anymore, they say whatever they will say to get more bench warmers.

I don't really see evidence that the scriptures are anti-science or that a God that is a personality can be detected with science. So in my case at least, science isn't a threat to my religion, if anything the science of today is in more inline to my religion than the science of the 1900s.

In the 1900s, they taught that the earth was never changing, the Hittites never existed as that the universe was eternal.

Today we know that the Earth chances in glacial and sea level events and continental drift, that the Hittites were both a powerful Anatolian civilization and North levantine people and that the universe has a beginning.

As long as people read the Bible in the context of its genres and period, few things we know now really contradict it and the more we will know about the world the less so.

Pecuman:


I mean, I mostly agree with you OP but I don't get how that necessary ends in Atheism.

Paul praised the Christians who instead of believing blindly returned to the scriptures to cross reference his claims before they believed. My parents taught me to do this at an early age so for me it mostly ended with me looking up some Theology in form of videos, articles and books and most of the issues have been resolved.

Side effect of this is I don't take our loud mouth pastors seriously anymore, they say whatever they will say to get more bench warmers.

I don't really see evidence that the scriptures are anti-science or that a God that is a personality can be detected with science. So in my case at least, science isn't a threat to my religion, if anything the science of today is in more inline to my religion than the science of the 1900s.

In the 1900s, they taught that the earth was never changing, the Hittites never existed as that the universe was eternal.

Today we know that the Earth chances in glacial and sea level events and continental drift, that the Hittites were both a powerful Anatolian civilization and North levantine people and that the universe has a beginning.

As long as people read the Bible in the context of its genres and period, few things we know now really contradict it and the more we will know about the world the less so.

If science is inline with your religion then how do you explain a virgin conceiving and giving birth?

FatherOfJesus:
If science is inline with your religion then how do you explain a virgin conceiving and given birth?

It is a miracle.

Something won't be a miracle if it was simply natural.

Pecuman:


It is a miracle.

Something won't be a miracle if it was simply natural.

Is this inline with science?

FatherOfJesus:
Is this inline with science?

I guess I was more referencing stuff not considered miracles when I typed that, like the historical record or the progression after a miraculous event.

Pecuman:


I guess I was more referencing stuff not considered miracles when I typed that, like the historical record or the progression after a miraculous event.

Are you cherry picking now?

FatherOfJesus:
Are you cherry picking now?

I'm not cherry picking just clearifying myself.

I don't expect miracles to follow the rules of the world, if they did they won't be miracles, just complex.

I expect everything to follow the rules of the world tho.

Pecuman:


I'm not cherry picking just clearifying myself.

I don't expect miracles to follow the rules of the world, if they did they won't be miracles, just complex.

I expect everything to follow the rules of the world tho.

The basis for your religion is that a virgin conceived and give birth to you god and I put it to you that you cannot explain that within the confines of science hence that is not inline with science. And if we ask you to provide a measurable evidence for that historical event, which we know you have none, it automatically threatens your religion.

This altogether has falsified your initial claim that your religion is inline with science. If the main tenet of your religion cannot be explained under a scientific scope then whole of your religion is not inline with science.

Pecuman:


I'm not cherry picking just clearifying myself.

I don't expect miracles to follow the rules of the world, if they did they won't be miracles, just complex.

I expect everything to follow the rules of the world tho.

There is no rule, you made a comment about your religion being inline with science and you were challenged with a question from your religion and now you are special pleading. You want to answer that question that suits your initial position

FatherOfJesus:
And if we ask you to provide a measurable evidence for that historical event, which we know you have none, it automatically threatens your religion.

We have as much and more evidence than we need for existance of someone of the status of (Carpenter turned Apocalyptic preacher) Jesus.

Basically only Kings, their enterouges and similar people have more evidence for their existance.

Pecuman:


We have as much and more evidence than we need for existance of someone of the status of (Carpenter turned Apocalyptic preacher) Jesus.

Basically only Kings, their enterouges and similar people have more evidence for their existance.

Just explain how a virgin conceiving and giving birth to a baby is inline with science.

No distraction

FatherOfJesus:
Just explain how a virgin conceiving and given birth to a baby is inline with science.

No distraction

Again, miracle.

Like why are you trying to turn this argument into "miracles don't exist".

Someone cannot be a Christian and not believe in the possibility of the miraculous.

Pecuman:


Again, miracle.

Like why are you trying to turn this argument into "miracles don't exist".

Someone cannot be a Christian and not believe in the possibility of the miraculous.

Is miracle inline with science?

FatherOfJesus:
Is miracle inline with science?

Yes.

With the advent of Quantum mechanics, physical laws are more taken as probalistic than deterministic.

Quoting Dr Mark Worthing
"Science at least to the extent influenced by Quantum mechanics is no longer certain as to what can and cannot happen".

The most widely taught example of this is the heisenberg uncertainty principle in relation to mass and velocity but it applies to much more and can be more easily noticed in very small and unstable matter where a much smaller variation in probability can result in much larger effects.

Like for example, the relatively stable Lead atom can instantaneous transmute into Gold but it is highly improbable that an entire bar of lead will instantly transmute into Gold.

(Also the definition of miracle I used is Hume's which many still don't agree with)