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

[QUOTE=lurch67]Just because you cant grasp concepts such as the big bang or natural selection or mutative adaptation, does not mean God exists.[/QUOTE]
Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm

[QUOTE=Jello]Those concepts as you call them have nothing to do with what we're talking about.:facepalm[/QUOTE]


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. :end quote



This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.

[QUOTE=lurch67]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.

This whole thread is creationism vs. evolution. :facepalm yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Bladers : Today at 01:47 AM.[/QUOTE]
No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Jello]No it's not you idiot. It's creationism vs. abiogenesis and the Big Bang has no association with evolution whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.

[QUOTE=lurch67]So you have a better name for it, good for you. Bladers also brought up cosmic aligment and origins earlier. That is why I have included the Big Bang in that statement.[/QUOTE]
They are two distinct theories. You were wrong, just stop.

[QUOTE=boozehound]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]
Not true.:rolleyes:

[IMG]http://seemslegit.com/_images/f873f38ebb382656b4ee720311aa4265/1924%20-%20can%27t-hear-you%20creationism%20religion.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=lurch67][B]Again stories written about people centuries after they are dead without any other form of documentation are proof of nothing. [/B]Period. The bible and every single thing in it has to be taken in faith. Faith is the oppisite of proof. The whole resurrection story was stolen for pagan mythology in order to convert them. There is only one original story form the bible, old test or new, the story of Moses. Even the stories of Eden, Noah, and even the adventures of Jesus himself, are rehashed tales of other relgions prior to rise of Judaism.

And where are these people who rise from the dead with no assistance from medical personel? Is there a wave of Zombies coming we need to know about? I have brought people back from clinical death as an EMT, so does this make me a mircle worker too?[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Seriously, you don't know shit about what you're talking about in this thread on both science and history.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]Everything is shoddy unless you accept mediocrity (and calling it mediocre is being generous).[/QUOTE]
DNA replication is mediocre?:hammerhead:

[QUOTE=Jello]Not true.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science[/URL]
[QUOTE]In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[/QUOTE]

This guy jello really reminds me of shlver

[QUOTE=boozehound][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science[/URL][/QUOTE]
if you drop an object from a height under normal circumstances, it will fall. Is this a fact?

[IMG]http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/public-acceptance-of-evolution.jpg[/IMG]

LOL @ Turkey!

USA! USA!

[QUOTE=boozehound]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.[/QUOTE]

Its there. Try again.

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

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Its there. Try again.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible[/url][/QUOTE]
from your wiki
[QUOTE]The individual books of the New Testament may be dated with some confidence to the[B] 1st and 2nd centuries AD. [/B]The earliest fragment of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a piece of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. For this reason, dating the composition of the texts relies on textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence, as well as direct references to historical events in the texts rather than dating the physical manuscripts.[/QUOTE]

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).

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]

[QUOTE=boozehound]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][/QUOTE]
What? Physicists consider gravity to be fact as do the majority of biologists consider evolution to be fact.

[QUOTE]In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."[/QUOTE]
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[QUOTE=Jello]Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981[/QUOTE]

the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.

[QUOTE=miller-time]the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.[/QUOTE]
What? Evolution isn't natural selection...:facepalm LOL Gravity is a theory of how objects fall towards one another? This is sad...

Yes, all the benefits and organization that helps all the 'lesser' people in Third World countries are not contradictions to natural selection at all.

[QUOTE]Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.[/QUOTE]
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[QUOTE=Jello]Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981[/QUOTE]
look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your cu[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact"]rrent conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.
[/URL]
That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover [B]magazine[/B], cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.

[QUOTE=boozehound]look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your cu[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact"]rrent conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.
[/URL]
That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover [B]magazine[/B], cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.[/QUOTE]
Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.:facepalm
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.

C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.

[QUOTE=Jasi]C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.[/QUOTE]
No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.