₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
it just gets sillier by the minute. Ok here is the "reference" by Brandon McKay - [size=14pt]Ken Smith's investigation

Ken Smith of Brisbane did an investigation which proves our point forcefully.[/size]

Who the bleeding monkey is "Ken Smith of Brisbane"? where is the reference to his work? where is the reference to his website (if this was taken from his site)? Infact can we even throw up a google search and find this Ken Smith?

Is this what you define as a "reference"? I give up . . .

I tried doing a less than exhaustive search on Ken Smith . . . imagine my surprise (NOT!) to find out he was another irrational atheist! 

bindex:
Why can't I see my post, why am I being logged in as Jesoul? What is this?

davidylan:
Exactly . . . which is why i wonder why you believe you MUST be right and olaadegbu wrong. I dont subscribe to Panin's work nor do i believe in mathematical jingoism in the bible . . . all i'm interested in is a fair critique of the bible based on FACTS.

Do you know Ken Smith by the way? I'm struggling to find anything on him. funny how dalaman is bursting an artery over him claiming Brendan "referenced" him except we see no reference to a book or website . . . just Ken Smith of Brisbane. Who is that?

Isnt it funny that Ken Smith of Brisbane (whoever that is) did a study which "forcefully proved" Brendan's point by looking ONLY at the last 12 verses of Mark? Mark contains 16 chapters!!! Ken Smith only found problems in 12 verses?   And that is Brendan's forceful proof?

davidylan:
are you alright? no seriously are you mentally balanced? what is it about simple logic that you people find so difficult to understand? did you even look through my critique before breaking an artery?

The points Brendan made were NOTHING. There was no reference for them, he didnt even bother to show us any body of work out there that agreed with him. you're basically quoting him (copying is a better word) because he counters olaadegbu period.

noetic2:
u keep embarrassing urself. use a dictionary to decipher what a body and consciousness means, then try to make up the opposite.
whats all this rubbish about the brain, why did u not clarify ur understanding of soul in reference to a brain.

I am saying the soul survives death.

noetic2:
Well knowing how this line of arguments tend to draw to, It is pertinent I ask u to also define a soul. but fair enough u dont know what a soul is.

The spiritual consciousness of a man refers to the entire composition of a person, his non-bodyand unconscious personality.
Which is usually the basis of instincts, acumen, decisions to acknowledge right from wrong, the subsequent rewards/consequences et all.

The spiritual consciousness is the part that survives from the human structure after death and as such receives eternal life.

I believe the clarification above addresses this questions

noetic2:
It does because u have little or no idea of the subject matter.

I wont be playing this according to ur rules. make an attempt to define what a soul is, make an assertion or statement that reflects ur understanding of a soul, then I would respond to ur questions.

noetic2:
The spiritual consciousness of a man from where physical consciousness is derived, distinct from the body and outlives the body.


now my turn to ask:
what is a soul?

davidylan:
jagunlabi is a prime example of a sad fact. These atheists who lampoon the bible as being a weird collection of myths dont seem to have a clear understanding of their own convictions.

For instance jagunlabi believes that a soul exists, that the soul is eternal (much like the bible), he believes that the "kingdom of heaven" exists (why its called heaven or a kingdom at all is beyond me neither does he himself understand) . . . he believes his unproven "kingdom of heaven" is within us (just stealing shamelessly from Luke 17:21 . . . even though he calls the bible a myth) . . .

What really does Jagunlabi believe? The soul hovers around after death, goes nowhere and manifests itself in physical things? How? This same jagunlabi forever crying for "proof" of christian beliefs cannot even show us tangible proof of souls of men who have become "physical things" like tables, chairs, dogs or lizards?

What really do atheists believe?

davidylan:
no one is interested in telling you what a soul is, if you had asked the question with a few bible verses you'd have had the usual deluge of restless atheists coming in. They dont know . . .

Krayola:
About Noah's flood . .  lets pretend there was a flood. How, thousands of years ago- before airplanes and ships and trips around the world,did anyone know the scope of the flood? (unless that dove flew around the world with a webcam)  . . .I mean, "the whole earth got flooded" is a big claim to make. . . I think it is highly unlikely that it happened.

But that doesn't make the Bible any less valuable a book for Christians. Most of my professors are born again Christians. . .the people that told me that the Bible is not the literal word of God are born again Christians, and extremely smart people. But they read the bible with literal and historical sensitivities . . I didn't question them about why they believe what they do (i thought that was inappropriate), but they pretty much say they do. One explained to me that people's faith has nothing to do with whether they believe some flood destroyed all life on earth, or some guy walked on water and is coming back on a flying horse to save them. It is about recognizing that there is something greater than them, and humbling themselves, in whatever way works for them, to what they believe is the source of all that exists.

noetic2:
If I refute ur copy-pasted claims and answer ur questions, where would u get ur next refutal from? google? wikipedia? talk-origins? where?


For the sake of fairness and since u believe u are an expert in evolution (and would not have to SHAMELESSLY) copy-paste, why dont u debate evolution. . . . .why are u afraid of evolution?

noetic2:
You, mazaje, toneyb et all [b]NEVER knew thought that polystrate fossils was not an acceptable term until u SHAMELESSLY looked it up in wikipedia.[/b]If u did, u would not have asked me to prove my statement, u would have told me as soon as I listed them to huxley that polystrate fossils are not acceptable.

You cant come here and start blowing hot air.

noetic2:
why do u keep ranting about noah's flood, when NONE of u was competent enough to refute the evidences produced?

why do u also have a problem defending ur evolution beliefs?

noetic2:
do u have a problem understanding simple english?

have u EVER refuted my claim from ur own knowledge? u SHAMELESSLY use googled up resources to antagonise my statements. So y in God's name should I ever answer ur questions? its called intellectual laziness on ur part.

There are atheists like KAG, Tudor et all. . . . .who debate using concepts that reflect their understanding, if and when they raise these questions u came up with, then I am bound to answer. why would be interested in encouraging ur ridiculous habit of using stolen write ups to refute my assertions?

noetic2:
u took that from my mouth.

I have no problem answering ur questions, but where would u get the refutations from? google? wikipedia? talk-origins?

noetic2:
u took that from my mouth.


This is ridiculous considering  that u googled it up, without having any understanding of the terms used.

I have no problem answering ur questions, but where would u get the refutations from? google? wikipedia? talk-origins?
u have repeatedly displayed sufficient ignorance on this subject, I d rather we debate a subject u are more comfortable with.

davidylan:
Pls rephrase . . . you copied an old recycled web article for him that you yourself dont understand. You cant steal someone's write-up and be shouting that you have "provided scientific evidence".

One more thing - i'll start taking atheism seriously the day it becomes more than just "proving that the bible is wrong".

I said earlier and i repeat - the day science proves that evolution is TRUE . . . you will find all church pews empty the next morning. Go on and help us with that proof son. Some of us need to believe science someday too.

davidylan:
that's exactly the point. Where are YOUR OWN answers?

EXACTLY the point . . . we are all on the same plane. You believe, i believe . . . what's the diff?

Next time before asking others to provide proof of Noah's ark be armed with your proof of your own side of the coin.

dalaman:
Evolution is just a believe that scientist are struggling so hard to find evidence for. Noah's flood is also a belief that has no scientific evidence so they both have no difference because they are both assertions that rely mostly on belief with little or no scientific evidence to supportthem.

davidylan:
and what do you think mentally lazy atheists use? Their brains?
Nah, they simply regurgitate old recycled web articles . . . christians are humans too. We shld be allowed to browse the web.

davidylan:
Neither has anyone ever presented scientific evidence why we shld dump creationism or noah's ark and embrace evolution. Start from there pls.

davidylan:
lol how many times has this piece above been recycled now? the original writer shld be suing for copyright.

noetic2:
As for evolution u are right.

But for Noah's flood remember that neither u, mazaje (the geologist  ) nor toneyb could refute these scientific evidences that support the existence of noah's flood . . . . . .except for the SHAMELESS copy-paste from talk origin.

what exactly do u believe, since u are not a fan of evolution?