Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Rellapse40]

"Radiometric dating of the rock formation that contained fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor at 231.4 million years old establishes its presence in the fossil record at this time."

230 million old fossils of dinosaurs but 0 fossils to prove evolution is true

k

dumb *****s

[Ikonoclastia]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The dead sea scrolls which were written thousands of years ago translate perfectly, except for some grammatical errors, to the texts we have today. No other book can make that claim. Your point had no real life application.

Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.

Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Rellapse40 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Radiometric dating of the rock formation that contained fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor at 231.4 million years old establishes its presence in the fossil record at this time."

230 million old fossils of dinosaurs but 0 fossils to prove evolution is true

k

dumb *****s

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Ikonoclastia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.

Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.

Except there are over 5,000 early copies of the bible and none of them contain this manipulation you speak of. Not to mention the Torah held by the Jews is also unchanged. When we look at other historical documents considered factual we find far fewer examples yet there is no dispute such as the works of many greek authors of which a mere handful of copies exist.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.

Being willfully ignorant is still trolling. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Being willfully ignorant is still trolling. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Willfully ignorant of what? I have been provided with no reason to believe any of your claims. You certainly haven't provided any substantiating evidence to you argument for evolution. Saying it evolved cause scientists say so is not evidence. You also failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why the bible should be considered unscientific. Pointing to misconceptions about the creation account is not evidence for anything except flawed human reasoning. I'm still wondering what I've posted so far that should be considered as trolling.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.

What about soft tissue fossils? Do they stand up to the scrutiny of 450 mn year old claims?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about soft tissue fossils? Do they stand up to the scrutiny of 450 mn year old claims?

depending on hyper specificity is how one hangs their self in an argument

[Ahldagor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4846410.html

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Ikonoclastia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.

Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.

So the book of Isaiah from the 20th century that is textually accurate to it's counterpart from over 2000 years prior some how proves that the bible is inaccurate?And by the way the scroll of Isaiah found in qumran was not the original scroll,it itself was hundreds of years from the original writing. I think that you are confusing the false doctrine inserted in the dogmas of Christian religions with the actual texts of the bible. Many Christian concepts ate not biblically supported, that does not take away from the honesty of the text.