SniperAssassin's Posts
Nairaland Forum › SniperAssassin's Profile › SniperAssassin's Posts
randomShek:OK but the way their faces are drawn looks weird. |
Finally finished Code Geass! One of the most brilliant anime I've ever seen. The ending was too painful kinda like Death Note. But that last scene with CC on the cart makes me wonder whether Lelouch is still alive. Anyhow sha I'm wondering whether I should watch The Promised Neverland. |
Kaycee7:He's right you know. Tite Kubo said that both Bleach and Burn the Witch exist in the same universe. |
As an Attack on Titan fan, I have this slight worry that MAPPA won't adapt the final season as well as Wit Studio did the previous 3. It's not really something that MAPPA did. The trailer was pretty OK. It's just that final scene where Eren is charging at Reiner that looks a bit weird, at least compared to Wit Studio's animation. Am I the only one who has this fear?
|
Arkmanbuddy:OK 1st of all, nobody says it is by chance that life came about. I do not know. You do not know. No one does. Currently scientists are making great strides towards the discovery of the origin of life but they are still not there yet. But that does not give you an excuse to say that it was and angry Middle Eastern deity, who commanded mass murder and infanticide and then present an old book as the only form of evidence. The same way I cannot claim that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who did it and present The Gospel of the FSM as my only evidence. As for the Big Bang, I suggest you actually go and read what the theory proposes because what you wrote up there is entirely different from what it entails. And as far as reading the Bible goes, I have done that for the greater part of my life, but I cannot, for the sake of open mindedness believe that a donkey, which does not have vocal cords, spoke clearly. As Christopher Hitchens said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
Arkmanbuddy:In order words, one must throw away reason and logic to understand the Bible?�� |
freeborn02:I have already shown you how your so-called proof does not hold water. Your argument is basically that the Bible is true because it is old, but yet there are other religious texts that tell stories that are entirely different from what you see in the Bible. Are you saying that those texts are true? For example, DeusExMachina above me has already given a rundown on The Epic of Gilgamesh(Sumerian flood myth). It is far older than the Bible.(In fact the expert opinion is that the Bible's version was based on it. But yet do you believe the version of events that you read there? |
freeborn02:You really need to read up on the burden of proof. I suggest you check out Russell's Teapot as an example. |
demmie1:Just leave the guy. I don't understand how a person needs psychiatric attention because he refuses to believe in something like a talking donkey. The last I checked, it is people who believe such, than are put in institutions. |
freeborn02:Pyramid Texts(Ancient Egyptian). The oldest of which is dated to 2400-2300 B.C. Epic of Gilgamesh(Sumerian):2100B.C. Vedic Texts(Hindu), the oldest of which where composed between 1500-1200 B.C. Coffin Texts(Ancient Egyptian), which were written beginning in the First Intermediate Period(2181-2055 B.C.) As opposed to the oldest books in the Old Testament, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets, which were written between the 8th and 6th century B.C. You can check this up on Google or Wikipedia |
freeborn02:Wait. So your evidence is that because the Bible is old, therefore it is true? I'm asking this because if we are to follow your logic, then therefore the religious books that are older than the Bible are also true. Also one does not prove a negative. |
gensteejay:The guy is basically asking atheists to solve a problem that Muslims created. |
Jeromejnr:What exactly do you understand by reasoning? |
OMG. I cannot believe this. He actually thought it would happen. And his fellow Christians were unable to dissuade him from this foolish endeavor?����� |
Come on. Please just answer the questions. |
cc: platteon, johnydon22, XxsabrinaxX, Michellekabod 2, budaatum, Lord Reed e.t.c. |
stonemind:Go to readcomiconline |
CAPSLOCKED:KILLMONGER |
Niflheim:All this stupidity. To what end?� |
OLAADEGBU:I have posted question 1. |
basically the same old verbal diarrhea and nothing of substance. You highlighted the word "complement"... i'm assuming you think the idea being propagated by the blog is claiming this is a "complement" to the BB? Which makes zero sense as they absolutely do not reference the BB at all in the sentence you quoted. Last i checked, the theory of relativity is not equivalent to the BB in any way, shape or form.
|
How do you know? One of the most well-worn canards that creationists use against evolution is the phrase "How do you know? Were you there?" This is used to imply that without direct observation, and someone being there to witness either the beginning of life or to cover every single one of the millions of years required for evolution, it cannot be confirmed. Yet, the exact question can be turned back on any historical event - real or mythological. For instance, was anyone from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International present in the Garden of Eden at the start? Did any of them personally board the ark and see the flood? Were any of the school children who are told by Ken Ham to parrot "How do you know? Were you there?", in the face of other compelling evidence, there to actually see who Cain and Abel were able to marry and breed with to continue the human species? Of course, there's the Bible. Right? But we can similarly expand the question to ask if anyone was there when the Bible was being written. Did anyone personally observe the 6 day literal creation of the Earth and give eyewitness testimony today that couldn't have been either made up or fabricated thousands of years ago? Even given the New Testament, where events slightly line up with established history, was anyone personally there to confirm that those events were real and not, perhaps, made up or embellished by the authors? The usual analogy given is that of eyewitnesses to a crime, testifying in court. Yet those using the analogy fail to notice that eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence that can be presented; people can misinterpret events, misremember them, or simply lie. Hard evidence, on the other hand, is far more concrete and more admissible, being less prone to tampering or basic human failures in memory and recollection. If creationists demand eyewitnesses to evolution, then everyone else is equally entitled to eyewitnesses to special creation and witnesses to corroborate that those claims aren't made up. And further witnesses to testify that those people aren't lying. Oh, and additional witnesses to make sure that by this point people aren't just repeating a lie because it's established. The other problem with the Bible is that by assuming God to be omnipotent it kind of works against the case of verifying the Bible to be the word of God. Whether the Bible says itself to be the word of God doesn't count. Simply put, given God's omnipotence by definition, there is no way to distinguish between genuine revelation of God from some faith-testing device from arbitrary non-God entity because there is no satisfactory answer to the question "Can god create authentication scheme/encryption secure enough that even God cannot crack?". Once you attribute the Bible to be the word of God because you believe Bible is something God would have revealed to you, the fact that you have a reference point to compare to means that neither the reference point nor the bible can possibly be from God. This would be a completely asinine question if it wasn't for the fact that creationists use it in exactly the same way all the time. So, how do you know? Were you there? |
Seriously I don't want to believe that you people are avoiding this thread. |
OLAADEGBU:Just answer |
budaatum:Oh I don't. The questions are for those who do. |
SniperAssassin: |
OLAADEGBU:What about whales? They breathe air through their blowholes. So they cannot be left behind |
Please I seriously need help answering these questions. I believe OLAADEGBU is best suited for that task. PS: please don't post pics |
DoctorAlien:I'd appreciate it if my questions were answered here. I'm running on limited data |
shadeyinka:1. First of all, I agree that the earth is older than 6000 years. Those questions are directed towards those who don't. But, if we are to take the book of Genesis as a source on history, then the earth was created before the stars and by extension, all galaxies (Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.). And it is impossible for the stars to exist before the earth, seeing that it is the nuclear fusion in them, that creates the elements found in the earth out of hydrogen. 2. What exactly does it mean for the earth to have no form? Are you saying that before all other things were created, the earth was some amorphous structure of some sort? Also I'm pretty we now know what caused the dinosaur extinction. Wikipedia link:https://www.0.freebasics.com/https/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event. And now, you are starting to sound strange. According to the Bible, the flood took place after the creation of man. So the dinosaur extinction could not have been a result of being left out of the ark, seeing as at that point, there were no humans. And as to the formation of crude oil https://www.0.freebasics.com/https/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum 3. OK so God created light but not the sun, so where exactly did this light originate from or did God transform himself into light. Note: I ask this question because the Bible says the stars were created immediately after it says that the sun and Moon were created. Wait, my arguments are faulty? But I didn't even make any arguments and I never drew any conclusions. This isn't even a debate about God's existence! I only posted a list of questions that Young Earth creationists should be able to answer. And how does that have anything to do with Cause and effect? So in all you have not answered any of the questions I asked. If you're not a young earth creationist, like I said before, I apologize for dragging you into this, because you are not one of the people who should answer this. But if you are, please answer my questions. |
shadeyinka:The Bible doesn't give a specific age, but Young Earth creationists claim that by adding the ages of people in the Bible, the earth is about 6000-10,000 years old. If you aren't a young earth creationist, then I apologize for bringing your name up, this thread isn't for you. |
shadeyinka:The Bible doesn't give a specific age, but Young Earth creationists claim that by adding the ages of people in the Bible, the earth is about 6000-10,000 years old. If you aren't a young earth creationist, then my bad, this thread isn't for you. |

