Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

Are you guys debating evolutionism vs creationism?

[QUOTE=boozehound]from your wiki


Frankly, this thread has made me lose any respect for you. Not because of your belief, but because of your complete lack of reading comprehension or understanding of the topic at hand. Its not that hard, try reading to understand sometime.

also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century (about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist).[/QUOTE]

Book Dates determined by scholars
Gospel of Matthew AD 60-85
Gospel of Mark AD 60-70
Gospel of Luke AD 60-90
Gospel of John AD 80-95
Acts AD 60-90
Romans AD 57–58
Corinthians AD 57
Galatians AD 45-55
Ephesians AD 65
Philippians AD 57–62
Colossians AD 60+
1 Thessalonians AD 50
2 Thessalonians AD 50
Timothy AD 60-100
Titus AD 60-100
Philemon AD 56
Hebrews AD 80-90
James AD 50-200
First Peter AD 60-96
Second Peter AD 60-130
Epistles of John AD 90-100
Jude AD 66-90
Revelation AD 68-100


[B][I][U][SIZE="7"]40AD-100AD is NOT 3rd OR 4th Century. That is 1ST AND 2ND.[/SIZE][/U][/I][/B]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible[/url]

No this is the link YOU posted.

[QUOTE=boozehound]and you are full of it. Just from the wiki wiki wack, you can clearly see that the oldest dated scrap of the bible is from the first half of the 2nd century AD.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts[/URL][/QUOTE]

This is the link I posted:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible[/url]

When it says "Earliest Known Fragments" those are fragments they DISCOVERED, that were WRITTEN from those times. These are some of the fragments, that they FOUND.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg/250px-P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg/250px-P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/P52_recto.jpg/200px-P52_recto.jpg[/IMG]

They didn't write out on century-old worn fragments of paper, these WERE FOUND.

[QUOTE=boozehound]those are not dates!

You are clearly a fool and that has nothing to do with your beliefs. For example, the fragments you linked to in your post were found in 1901!!!!!! and have been dated anywhere from the [B]1st century ad [/B]to 4th based on papyrology.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=boozehound]again, these are not the dates found. these are estimates of the dates written (in the case of paleography) or the plant material quit photosynthesizing/dies (in the case of radiocarbon). The link you supplied gives the dates (based on papyrology) as anywhere [B]from late first [/B]to 4th [B]century[/B]. so................[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=boozehound]also, thats the same goddamned link I posted 3 or 4 pages earlier. and nowhere are there any references to NT manuscripts before the first century ([B]about 100 years after his death for being a criminal terrorist[/B]).[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=TennesseeFan][B][I]40AD-100AD is NOT 3rd OR 4th Century. That is 1ST AND 2ND.[/I][/B][/QUOTE]

he didn't exclusively say 3rd or 4th century... i haven't been following this discussion but the texts themselves were determined to have been written decades after the death of jesus, and the oldest texts we can physically hold date back to the 2nd to 4th centuries. i'm not sure where the confusion lies?

If there was ever evidence for Darwinism, and survival of the fittest, let this be it:

[url]http://www.geekologie.com/2010/10/rip_guy_on_scooter_misses_elev.php[/url]

These threads get so heated...I think we need to relax. There is 150+ years of [I]real [/I]evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection and there really is no use arguing with people on the internet who refuse to acknowledge those facts.

In a great secularly governed society such as ours (in the west), the zealots are eventually dragged along towards reason and progress; even if it is kicking and screaming.

Like I always say, I have no issue with people evoking gods at the edge of their knowledge as a tool to try and to put into words what they feel is mysterious. I get that.

Where you come off looking like a douche is when you hijack this perfectly rational, neutral deist outlook on existence and pervert it to not only support your hocus pocus religious beliefs...but to try and discredit [I]real [/I]science.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]When it says "Earliest Known Fragments" those are fragments they DISCOVERED, that were WRITTEN from those times. These are some of the fragments, that they FOUND.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg/250px-P064-Mat-26.7-8-26.10-26.14-15-II.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg/250px-P._Chester_Beatty_I%2C_folio_13-14%2C_recto.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/P52_recto.jpg/200px-P52_recto.jpg[/IMG]

They didn't write out on century-old worn fragments of paper, these WERE FOUND.[/QUOTE]
dude you are way off. Radiocarbon dates the age of the parchment, not when it was found. Paleography dates when it was written based on linguistic elements, not when it was found.

That list of dates you put are just estimates of when they were written. They dont actually have any fragments of manuscripts from then, its an extension based on extreme supposition.

Most of these were found in the last several centuries (see the link you posted on the previous page, which was found in 1901). The dates based on RC and paleography, which you have ignored in favor of estimates of when they were written, suggest that the oldest written NT that survives, even in fragments, is from around 125 AD.


I have asked you repeatedly to provide a secure date of a manuscript, either RC or paleography, and you havent. You keep referencing links that disagree with you because they contain estimates of when they were written. Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about surviving manuscripts.

[QUOTE=Jello]DNA replication is mediocre?:hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

You should bang yourself on the head since you don't know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps][IMG]http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg[/IMG]

LOL @ Turkey!

USA! USA![/QUOTE]

Add to my to do list:

Move to iceland, denmark or sweden.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]You should bang yourself on the head since you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
How is it mediocre? Please inform me.

[QUOTE=boozehound]dude you are way off. Radiocarbon dates the age of the parchment, not when it was found. Paleography dates when it was written based on linguistic elements, not when it was found.

That list of dates you put are just estimates of when they were written. They dont actually have any fragments of manuscripts from then, its an extension based on extreme supposition.

Most of these were found in the last several centuries (see the link you posted on the previous page, which was found in 1901). The dates based on RC and paleography, which you have ignored in favor of estimates of when they were written, suggest that the oldest written NT that survives, even in fragments, is from around 125 AD.


I have asked you repeatedly to provide a secure date of a manuscript, either RC or paleography, and you havent. You keep referencing links that disagree with you because they contain estimates of when they were written. Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about surviving manuscripts.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am saying the dates I listed were the estimated years that they were written, and anything 200+ were dates when the torn and tattered fragments were found.

[QUOTE=Jello]if you drop an object from a height under normal circumstances, it will fall. Is this a fact?[/QUOTE]
You gonna answer this booze?

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Yes, all the accounts and testimonies of being blind, tormented, dead, and lepers are all a coincidence :facepalm

You don't make stuff like this up. No one is that creative.[/QUOTE]


:roll: :applause:

brilliant!

Did you know Mary Shelley actually knew a Dr. Frankenstein but nearly all records of him were lost when his castle was burned down?

I mean, how could anyone have ever come up with something so fantastical unless it was true? It was a from a woman no less! No way she could have thought up any of that on her own in those days!

[QUOTE=Jello]You gonna answer this booze?[/QUOTE]
nope. its a stupid question. [COLOR="White"]and yes, the object falling is an observable fact. as is the speed at which it falls, etc. causal explanations for why it falls, i.e. gravity, are not fact. [/COLOR]