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

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.[/QUOTE]
Really? Weak 4th hand records of "first hand" eyewitness accounts? Really? and, people come back from the "dead" more often than you think.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]False all of the NT books and letters range from 37AD to 98AD. The Gospels and Acts range from 37AD to 67AD. All of this was scientifically tested, the only things scholars debate over is the accuracy of the dates, not the precision.[/QUOTE]
show me a citation for these dates. and what are they actually on? I assume you are talking about AMS radiocarbon dating of papyrus? I cannot find any info, so anything to point me in the right direction would be good.

[QUOTE=boozehound]are you also a young earth creationist who denies the age of the earth as estimated by radioactivity? Then you cant also use those same dating principles to hold up your argument.[/QUOTE]

It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]No, like I know stuff like this happens in North Africa every now and then. I had a friend who witnessed a resurrection. He has a friend that goes to UT hospital to pray over patients. He never prayed over the dead though. There was a guy who has been dead for several hours and they went to harvest his organs, and he said "hey can I pray for him" and they said "why? hes dead?" and he said "I know, but I want to see if he can come back to life" and they said "uh sure go ahead". My friend Nick was sitting on the bench outside the room. His friend laid hands on the dead body and said "In the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to live", and he came out the door and the man was following him. Healing still happens today, no doubt.[/QUOTE]
So, you know a dude who knows a guy that talked to a dude who knows some dude that has a relitive who heard of a guy that knows....... Wow your proof is so hard to refute.

[QUOTE=boozehound]Really? Weak 4th hand records of "first hand" eyewitness accounts? Really? and, people come back from the "dead" more often than you think.[/QUOTE]

No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air.

[QUOTE=boozehound]show me a citation for these dates. and what are they actually on? I assume you are talking about AMS radiocarbon dating of papyrus? I cannot find any info, so anything to point me in the right direction would be good.[/QUOTE]
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=lurch67]So, you know a dude who knows a guy that talked to a dude who knows some dude that has a relitive who heard of a guy that knows....... Wow your proof is so hard to refute.[/QUOTE]

Nick is a good friend of mine, and he saw the dead guy walk out of the room. The guy has spoken at church events and stuff. I can get his name and everything.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.[/QUOTE]
Well first, the accuracy of a radioactive dating technique is based on the half-life of the element. So, yes, for carbon, the upper limits are about 40k. But there are lots of other dating techniques based on the same radioactive principles.


Also, I agree that you can hold your belief in the bible and not be a YEC. Just wondering if you were.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. [B]You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air[/B].[/QUOTE]
Don't read much do you. Rodenberry developed an entire language and history for multiple races of aliens in star trek. So by your logic, interstellar travel should be a couple yrs away then.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]It is a scientific fact that age-testing of radioactivity can only go back so far. Plus the age of the Earth is not anti-Biblical no matter how old you say the Earth is.[/QUOTE]
also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Nick is a good friend of mine, and he saw the dead guy walk out of the room. The guy has spoken at church events and stuff. I can get his name and everything.[/QUOTE]
And nobody ever makes things up to swindle people out of money.........:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]No John saw those things HIMSELF. And Luke interviewed people who were healed by Jesus. HEALED. Personal testimonies of HEALING. You do not make stuff like that up. That is too detailed to be conjured out of thin air.[/QUOTE]

Well, the balloon boy and his family swore that they didn't plan a hoax either, so those people "might" have been fibbing too broski.....and I use the word might very cautiously. The end result is jail time for mama and papa.

[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]
again, any evidence for earlier dates than this? Or will you just ignore it? Anyhoo, Im done with this thread.

[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]

Those are the dates they were found, not written.

These are the dates they were written, determined by scholars (not just run-of-the-mill middle class Christians, but highly intelligent professors and apologeticans.

[QUOTE=Bladers]i'm a fu[COLOR="black"]c[/COLOR]king idiot[/QUOTE]

yes i know.

do you actually think i'm going to waste my time responding to all that tripe?

this thread is a damn mess.

[QUOTE=lurch67]And nobody ever makes things up to swindle people out of money.........:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Nick isn't like that. You would have to know him. Hes the kind of guy that would sell his house and everything he owned for the betterment of mankind. And all his events he has spoken at have been non-profit. You probably won't believe it, because this is over the internet, but if you were here and knew him you would think differently about it.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Those are the dates they were found, not written.

These are the dates they were written, determined by scholars (not just run-of-the-mill middle class Christians, but highly intelligent professors and apologeticans.[/QUOTE]
uh, so, where are the earlier radiocarbon dates? and, no those are the estimated dates of the writing, based on either paleography of the script or actual radiocarbon dating of the cellulose. why dont you bother reading the link before dismissing it.

Again, I wait with baited breath for any citation (even from a crockpot) with earlier RC dates for NT manuscripts.

[QUOTE=chungerball]Well, the balloon boy and his family swore that they didn't plan a hoax either, so those people "might" have been fibbing too broski.....and I use the word might very cautiously. The end result is jail time for mama and papa.[/QUOTE]

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=TennesseeFan]Nick isn't like that. You would have to know him. Hes the kind of guy that would sell his house and everything he owned for the betterment of mankind. And all his events he has spoken at have been non-profit. You probably won't believe it, because this is over the internet, but if you were here and knew him you would think differently about it.[/QUOTE]

You are correct sir. I don't believe it, just like how I don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I would certainly believe if he came back to life as a zombie because that would be the only logical answer here.

[QUOTE=boozehound]uh, so, where are the earlier radiocarbon dates? and, no those are the estimated dates of the writing, based on either paleography of the script or actual radiocarbon dating of the cellulose. why dont you bother reading the link before dismissing it.

Again, I wait with baited breath for any citation (even from a crockpot) with earlier RC dates for NT manuscripts.[/QUOTE]

"Traditional views assume that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. [B]The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well.[/B]"

Look they were written and found in [I]fragments.[/I]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64[/url]

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were [I]found.[/I] Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.

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

[B]You don't make stuff like this up. No one is that creative[/B].[/QUOTE]
Again, whole industries have been made by people who are that creative.

[QUOTE=chungerball]You are correct sir. I don't believe it, just like how I don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I would certainly believe if he came back to life as a zombie because that would be the only logical answer here.[/QUOTE]

Not really logical at all. There are way more testimonies about the human heartbeat stopping and becoming functional again (whether it be a second to a few hours to several days) to the 0 amount of testimonies of zombies.

[QUOTE=lurch67]Again, whole industries have been made by people who are that creative.[/QUOTE]

60AD-90AD Western Asia and Middle East wasn't exactly your modern-day American entrepreneurial market land.

[QUOTE=miller-time]yes i know.

do you actually think i'm going to waste my time responding to all that tripe?

this thread is a damn mess.[/QUOTE]

The thread is a mess because your fallacies are being exposed.
Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]60AD-90AD Western Asia and Middle East wasn't exactly your modern-day American entrepreneurial market land.[/QUOTE]
But people were just as creative back then.

[QUOTE=lurch67]But people were just as creative back then.[/QUOTE]

:eek:

[QUOTE=Bladers]The thread is a mess because your fallacies are being exposed.
Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.[/QUOTE]
God is also just a theory.

There is no proof for nor against God's existance. Only evidence that can lend itself to one theory or another.

[QUOTE=Bladers]Its either God or you create a bunch of fabricated theories to fill in the blank.
There is more proof for God than against him. Infact, there is no proof and I mean none against the existence of God.[/QUOTE]

From another perspective, God is just another theory filling in the blank too.

I can’t be bothered writing an essay to respond to the OP. So I’m just going to question the most significant part of its argument... It’s conclusion.

For arguments sake let’s say I'm convinced. Sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator. But why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren? Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities?

All this argument can hope to prove is that God is [B]possible[/B]. Not definate, not the truth, but one possibility amongst many more. If we agree that an intelligent designer may exist, we agree to infinite possibilities of its form, not one. I’m happy to admit the God might exist, if you admit the all other potential creators are just as likely.

Tennesseefan was alive back then, travelled the lands interviewing people and documented their lack of creativity.

[QUOTE=sawyersauce]
Let’s say, sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator (the watchmaker analogy is not undeniable evidence, there are much stronger arguments out there, but whatever.) Why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? [B]Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren?[/B]
[/quote]

Those are myths and idols..

[QUOTE][B]Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities? [/B][/QUOTE]

Because to create this elegant universe and all the thing in them, you would need an all-knowing, all-powerful and conscious being.

[QUOTE=Bladers]Those are myths and idols..



Because to create this elegant universe you would need an all-knowing and powerful being.[/QUOTE]

I edited my post to make it more readable - I have a habit of doing that. This is what it says now...
[QUOTE=sawyersauce]For arguments sake let’s say I'm convinced. Sure – there is undeniable evidence of an intelligent creator. But why do you conclude that the only option for that creator is the Christian God? Why not a flying spaghetti monster? Why not Zeus and his brethren? Why not some glacial cosmic force? Why not consider all those equally valid possibilities?

All this argument can hope to prove is that God is possible. Not definate, not the truth, but one possibility amongst many more. If we agree that an intelligent designer may exist, we agree to infinite possibilities of its form, not one. I’m happy to admit the God might exist, if you admit the all other potential creators are just as likely.
[/QUOTE]

You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others? And I don't just mean the examples I gave I mean ALL other possibilites, they are infinite.

I can see you want to legitimise Christianity as a logical option. So give me a logical answer.

[QUOTE=sawyersauce]You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others? And I don't just mean the examples I gave I mean ALL other possibilites, they are infinite.[/QUOTE]

trust me there is no point talking to the guy, you can go through line by with him and he will keep changing the topic or move the goal posts. he is either the worlds most dedicated troll or the worlds stupidest man.

[QUOTE=sawyersauce]I edited my post to make it more readable - I have a habit of doing that.

You haven't adressed the issue. Even if you prove the existence of an intelligent designer you do not prove it is God. God is just one possibility. Why do you not aknowledge the others?

I can see you want to legitimise Christianity as a logical option. So give me a logical answer.[/QUOTE]

Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]"Traditional views assume that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. [B]The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well.[/B]"

Look they were written and found in [I]fragments.[/I]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64[/url]

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were [I]found.[/I] Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.[/QUOTE]
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 from late first to 4th century. so................


re-read your quote here, and pay particular attention to the third word.

Why must everything aside from God have a creator?

Get out with all of your man-made concepts about God.

[QUOTE=Bladers]Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped.[/QUOTE]

So you're not arguing for the existence of the Christian God? Which is a very sepcific entity with an associated mythology.

You're just arguing for the concept of an intelligent designer?

Because those are two very different arguments. They do not equate to the same thing. And I think people reading this thread are confused.

[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 from late first to 4th century. so................


re-read your quote here, and pay particular attention to the third word.[/QUOTE]

You obviously can't read. Any dates beyond the 1st century were when the fragments were found, and anything before were the estimations of when they were [I][B]written.[/B][/I] Those 60-90 dates aren't invisible, you should be able to see them.

[QUOTE=Bladers]Here is an analogy; your mom Didn't all of a sudden, bam, wake up pregnant with you. It was a conscious decision and act of sex that brought you to this world.

Two things happened, a conscious decision and the ability to act upon that decision.
Secondly the ability to bring you into the world, ability to form you in her womb, and preserve you. When she gave birth to you, she was called your "mother".

With God its like the same thing, We know two things about Universe.

1) It couldn't be made by chance.
2) There needed to be something to create it.

So we know something created it, that something must be all power first.
To create something so vast it needs so much power.
Second It must be conscious unless it won't know what its doing.
Thirdly it must be all-knowing, because one billionth off on any thing and BAM the universe collapses.

Fourthly, It must exist everywhere because to create such vast universe, It would have to be greater than its creation.

These all are attribute of God.

Omnipotent
Omniscience
Omnipresent

[B]and when we talk about God, we are talking about God the creator, not some ancient god myth or idol some people worshiped[/B].[/QUOTE]
Just because you cant grasp concepts such as the big bang or natural selection or mutative adaptation, does not mean God exists.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]You obviously can't read. Any dates beyond the 1st century were when the fragments were found, and anything before were the estimations of when they were [I][B]written.[/B][/I] Those 60-90 dates aren't invisible, you should be able to see them.[/QUOTE]
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 1st century ad to 4th based on papyrology. No radiocarbon dates given.

So, again, link an actual manuscript that has a date (either paleography/papyrology or RC) from within 100 years of Jesus' life.

If you want to present this evidence as a support for an argument, I suggest that you, a) actually read the durn thing, and b) learn more about how things are dated.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]"Traditional views [B]assume[/B] that the bulk of New Testament texts date to the period between AD 45 and AD 100, with the Pauline epistles among the earliest texts. Other views may pre- or post-date the individual books by several decades. [B]The earliest preserved fragment for each text is included as well.[/B]"

Look they were written and found in [I]fragments.[/I]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_64[/url]

Hundred or so years later. Thats when they were [I]found.[/I] Not written. The earliest preserved fragments are the earliest fragments found and later they found others and comprised all the fragments together. They didn't rip up papyrus and write on different little pieces of paper.[/QUOTE]
again, your quote is not from the link you provide. regardless, it does nothing to bolster your argument, as it says nothing about direct dates. all the direct dates are from at least 100 years after jesus' death. And, no, a RC date is not "when it was found".

Jesus, you must have the reading comprehension/intellectual capacity of a 3rd grader.