(November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample...

You're a goddamn fucking dumbass

I don't know what worries me the most. People' lack of knowledge in Physics or people taking that 'holy' book as history.

(November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample...

Quote:Acts 9:4-7

New International Version (NIV)

4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

How can an otherwise seemingly intelligent human being fall for such absurd shit?

(November 23, 2013 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, scientists DON'T use carbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.

Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts. Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably.

---

(November 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out.

Ha, as if I'd ask him to join an atheist forum!

Quote:Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts.

What I meant was that radiocarbon dating isn't among the dating tools scientists use to even 'estimate' the age of this planet.

Quote:Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably.

Which has bugger all to do with the age of the Earth.

Boru

(November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote:

(November 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out.

Ha, as if I'd ask him to join an atheist forum!

Fine, I'll ask him myself. The odds are that he is lurking in the church for social pressure reasons. Probably from his family. He'd likely enjoy the laughs here.

(November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote:

(November 23, 2013 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, scientists DON'T use carbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.

Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts. Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably.

---

(November 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out.

Ha, as if I'd ask him to join an atheist forum!

You afraid he might cross to the dark side?

(November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample...

Compelling.