New "Gospel" Found...Gospel of Judas [Archive]

Fobra

04-07-2006, 03:27 PM

And though the manuscript has been carbon-dated to around 300AD, it is likely to be a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript written around the year 150AD, in the same period when the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were also written down.
Their dates for the gospels are arguable, most of the dates I've seen of the NT range from 15-30 years after the resurrection took place. Even one part of Pauls writtings (1 Corinthians ch. 15) has been dated to be around A.D. 35., this makes sense because Paul converted a couple years after the resurrection took place and specifically detailed his conversion in his letters.

The Cainites were part of a movement known as the Gnostics, a sect often described as Christian heresy but which was a syncretistic tendency that picked-and-mixed elements from many different religions.
Given that the Gnostics have already been discredited, then the gospel of Judas ought to be discredited since it's Cainite origin is within Gnosticism.

BrianC

04-07-2006, 09:41 PM

I believe the text bears out that Jesus TOLD Judas to turn him in. Thus Judas did as he was told, but with a heavy heart.

Scott

Here's the passage from Matthew 26:23-25

23 - Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.

24 - The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25 - Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."[a]

So yes, Jesus told Judas that he would be the one to betray him. He didn't actually TELL him to betray him, though.

Also, you must take into account that there are over 27,000 direct copies of the original bible. Jews were made to copy the original Old Testament and memorize the Torah specifically line for line thousands of years ago. Then, the New Testament was copied thousands of times, as well, from its direct source writings. They say that the only difference in all 27,000 copies is that, in a manner of speaking, sometimes the I isn't dotted and the T isn't crossed. Otherwise, they're dead on accurate. With these new finds of new documents, there is no value held in them, because they cannot be substatiated with such solid first hand copies like the original bible can.

BrianC

04-07-2006, 09:46 PM

Also, the carbon dating should be immediately thrown out. I've watched shows where they carbon date things right in front of you on camera and get dates all OVER the place. For instance, I saw them carbon date the legs of a cow whom had just died. One leg was 100 years old and the other was 3,000 years old. They carbon dated a penny at over 1,700 years old I think. Carbon levels are currently rising in our atmosphere, which means the further you go back, the less carbon was avaliable to collect in and on object, meaning you would get older dates than you really should. The half life of carbon has also been under scrutinization as well, if I remember correctly, and the extent of how far back in can date keeps getting less and less.

Scientists also found that it would take the earth 30,000 years to reach an equillibrium of carbon in the atmosphere. However, the carbon levels are still increasing. There's no explanation for this. They say that the current levels would indicate a young earth, but refuse to believe that, obviously because of their worldview...

White trash wagon

04-07-2006, 09:46 PM

Here's the passage from Matthew 26:23-25

23 - Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.

24 - The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25 - Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."[a]

So yes, Jesus told Judas that he would be the one to betray him. He didn't actually TELL him to betray him, though.

Also, you must take into account that there are over 27,000 direct copies of the original bible. Jews were made to copy the original Old Testament and memorize the Torah specifically line for line thousands of years ago. Then, the New Testament was copied thousands of times, as well, from its direct source writings. They say that the only difference in all 27,000 copies is that, in a manner of speaking, sometimes the I isn't dotted and the T isn't crossed. Otherwise, they're dead on accurate. With these new finds of new documents, there is no value held in them, because they cannot be substatiated with such solid first hand copies like the original bible can.

The text I was refering to is the topic, the "Gospel of Judas". Can you quote some of that off the internet?

Scott

White trash wagon

04-07-2006, 09:52 PM

Here's the passage from Matthew 26:23-25

23 - Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.

24 - The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25 - Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."[a]

So yes, Jesus told Judas that he would be the one to betray him. He didn't actually TELL him to betray him, though.

Also, you must take into account that there are over 27,000 direct copies of the original bible. Jews were made to copy the original Old Testament and memorize the Torah specifically line for line thousands of years ago. Then, the New Testament was copied thousands of times, as well, from its direct source writings. They say that the only difference in all 27,000 copies is that, in a manner of speaking, sometimes the I isn't dotted and the T isn't crossed. Otherwise, they're dead on accurate. With these new finds of new documents, there is no value held in them, because they cannot be substatiated with such solid first hand copies like the original bible can.

Oh, you left the part out about how when biblical texts were copied, the originals were destroyed, so you'll never know how distorted the bible may be, since no texts exist that can be dated earlier than about 100 AD. Not to mention that many books of the original bible were disgarded when the King James version was written, 1400 years after the fact.

Scott

BrianC

04-07-2006, 10:28 PM

Oh, you left the part out about how when biblical texts were copied, the originals were destroyed, so you'll never know how distorted the bible may be, since no texts exist that can be dated earlier than about 100 AD. Not to mention that many books of the original bible were disgarded when the King James version was written, 1400 years after the fact.

Scott

That's not true at all. The simple fact that the copies 27,000 first hand copies are dead on the same, we know that they are an accurate copy of the original, because they come from so many different locations and people. There's no way they could've organized such a mass distorted view of the originals. That's like "hand of God" type precision back then, to be able to destroy EVERY original and then make ALL of the copies distorted purposely. That's down right impressive...and all of this without the use of the internet. LOL Yeah, right...I'm sure someone pulled that off...

Also, during the dark ages was supposedly when any originals were destroyed, because the Catholic church didn't want the truth exposed at the time. After the printing press was created, people got their hands on some of the copies of the bible and started printing them. There were still plenty of copies to be had.

Just assumptiong that many books of the bible were "disgarded" when the King James was put together is actually a ridiculous claim started by the Catholic church long ago, simply because the Apocripha was not included. The Catholic church, during the dark ages, added this to the bible pawning it off as the original bible. However, the Seven Churches of Asia were the ones that canonized the original books of the bible, which is what you have in the King James version, and never included the Apocripha. Have you ever read the Apocripha before? It has a completely different flow to its writings. COMPLETELY different. A first grader could pick up on how differently it's written. And since the original bible was God breathed, then all of it should flow perfectly, as the KJV does...not as the Apocripha does...

BrianC

04-07-2006, 10:29 PM

The text I was refering to is the topic, the "Gospel of Judas". Can you quote some of that off the internet?

Scott

Nah, that article is the only thing I've read about it, because it's nonsense. It doesn't have 27,000 first hand copies. It may not even have a second copy of itself...how sad is that? That article explains how it reeks of inconsistency and legitimacy.

White trash wagon

04-08-2006, 08:16 AM

That's not true at all. The simple fact that the copies 27,000 first hand copies are dead on the same, we know that they are an accurate copy of the original, because they come from so many different locations and people. There's no way they could've organized such a mass distorted view of the originals. That's like "hand of God" type precision back then, to be able to destroy EVERY original and then make ALL of the copies distorted purposely. That's down right impressive...and all of this without the use of the internet. LOL Yeah, right...I'm sure someone pulled that off...

Also, during the dark ages was supposedly when any originals were destroyed, because the Catholic church didn't want the truth exposed at the time. After the printing press was created, people got their hands on some of the copies of the bible and started printing them. There were still plenty of copies to be had.

Just assumptiong that many books of the bible were "disgarded" when the King James was put together is actually a ridiculous claim started by the Catholic church long ago, simply because the Apocripha was not included. The Catholic church, during the dark ages, added this to the bible pawning it off as the original bible. However, the Seven Churches of Asia were the ones that canonized the original books of the bible, which is what you have in the King James version, and never included the Apocripha. Have you ever read the Apocripha before? It has a completely different flow to its writings. COMPLETELY different. A first grader could pick up on how differently it's written. And since the original bible was God breathed, then all of it should flow perfectly, as the KJV does...not as the Apocripha does...

There are NO known original biblical texts, by original I mean written in the hand of the apostles. Since the earliest manuscripts date to about 140AD, the apostles would have been close to 170 years old if any of them had written it. It is known that first and second century scribes, when they completed a new bible, destroyed the old texts.

There are 6 more books in the Catholic bible than a KJV, plus at least 10 more excluded from both. Where did you read about these 27,000 "original" bibles? That would have taken the apostles centuries to hand write 27,000 bibles ( remember no printing presses then).

Scott

BrianC

04-08-2006, 11:23 AM

There are NO known original biblical texts, by original I mean written in the hand of the apostles. Since the earliest manuscripts date to about 140AD, the apostles would have been close to 170 years old if any of them had written it. It is known that first and second century scribes, when they completed a new bible, destroyed the old texts.

There are 6 more books in the Catholic bible than a KJV, plus at least 10 more excluded from both. Where did you read about these 27,000 "original" bibles? That would have taken the apostles centuries to hand write 27,000 bibles ( remember no printing presses then).

Scott

Not "original bibles". There are 27,000 copies of original texts. Copies...meaning they were copies from the originals. They, themselves, were not originals. The point is that all of the texts found thus far pertaining to the books of the bible have all been dead on accurate with the original books of the bible. The cananized books. Just do some research on the original texts. The Dead Sea Scroll further confirmed what the original books of the bible were supposed to have in them, and they were dead on accurate to the copies of the bible we have today. I listened to an entire show one day on Point of View here in DFW where they talked about having over 27,000 copies of manuscripts taken directly from the original books of the bible.

SVT93Style

04-08-2006, 12:30 PM

There are NO known original biblical texts, by original I mean written in the hand of the apostles. Since the earliest manuscripts date to about 140AD, the apostles would have been close to 170 years old if any of them had written it. It is known that first and second century scribes, when they completed a new bible, destroyed the old texts.

There are 6 more books in the Catholic bible than a KJV, plus at least 10 more excluded from both. Where did you read about these 27,000 "original" bibles? That would have taken the apostles centuries to hand write 27,000 bibles ( remember no printing presses then).

Scott

Your dates are inaccurate, and outdated as far as the arch. record goes.
Conservative estimates say 50-60 years, and some claim 30-35....point being the eye witnesses who witnessed/experienced this were alive.

Then we get to Pauls Creed from 1st Corinthians which taught 1. Christ died for the sins 2. Was buried 3. Was raise from the dead. This is important b/c this was being taught 2-5 yr's after Jesus's death.

I am sure you already know the reason for the destruction of the "old" manuscripts, when they began to fad or discolor they would destroy them so that errors couldn't be passed along...do a little research into the life of a scribe...interesting to say the least.

As far as the manuscripts go here is the break down.
24,000 total. (give or take)
5,000 copies of the NT in Greek
8,000-10,000 in Latin
8,000+ in other languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian.
Bring them all together, compare...99.5% percent of the content b/w all of these matches up.

BrianC

04-08-2006, 08:37 PM

Your dates are inaccurate, and outdated as far as the arch. record goes.
Conservative estimates say 50-60 years, and some claim 30-35....point being the eye witnesses who witnessed/experienced this were alive.

Then we get to Pauls Creed from 1st Corinthians which taught 1. Christ died for the sins 2. Was buried 3. Was raise from the dead. This is important b/c this was being taught 2-5 yr's after Jesus's death.

I am sure you already know the reason for the destruction of the "old" manuscripts, when they began to fad or discolor they would destroy them so that errors couldn't be passed along...do a little research into the life of a scribe...interesting to say the least.

As far as the manuscripts go here is the break down.
24,000 total. (give or take)
5,000 copies of the NT in Greek
8,000-10,000 in Latin
8,000+ in other languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian.
Bring them all together, compare...99.5% percent of the content b/w all of these matches up.

I wasn't aware that they were destroyed because of discoloration. I thought the originals were destroyed during the dark ages by the catholic church. Maybe...just maybe they were beginning to fade and get discolored during the dark ages. hehehe :)

SVT93Style

04-08-2006, 10:59 PM

I wasn't aware that they were destroyed because of discoloration. I thought the originals were destroyed during the dark ages by the catholic church. Maybe...just maybe they were beginning to fade and get discolored during the dark ages. hehehe :)

I haven't heard much about the Catholic Church etc...although I had heard that some had been lost due to fires. But if you look into the history of scribes and how they worked etc...it is clear that manuscrpits were destroyed to avoid any mistranslations etc due to the paper disentergration...we must remember they weren't exactly using colleged ruled paper and a Bic pen...

BrianC

04-09-2006, 09:29 AM

I haven't heard much about the Catholic Church etc...although I had heard that some had been lost due to fires. But if you look into the history of scribes and how they worked etc...it is clear that manuscrpits were destroyed to avoid any mistranslations etc due to the paper disentergration...we must remember they weren't exactly using colleged ruled paper and a Bic pen...

Yeah, that makes sense. But the dead sea scrolls lasted nearly 2000 years though, and they were supposed to be direct copies of the originals, right?

zorro

04-09-2006, 10:41 AM

Yeah, that makes sense. But the dead sea scrolls lasted nearly 2000 years though, and they were supposed to be direct copies of the originals, right?

So far, every one has been very wrong on all this. Allow me to refer you to THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS, Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE,

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Z

DarkWolf

04-10-2006, 11:52 AM

I am sure you already know the reason for the destruction of the "old" manuscripts, when they began to fad or discolor they would destroy them so that errors couldn't be passed along...do a little research into the life of a scribe...interesting to say the least.

But we have original egyptian documents that survived 5000+ years. Is "the word of God" so susceptible to degredation that even less than 100 years a new copy must be made and destroy the old, while the words of heathens are easily preserved for millenia?

Yeah, that makes sense. But the dead sea scrolls lasted nearly 2000 years though, and they were supposed to be direct copies of the originals, right?

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Old Testament. Even though they were written during, and some time after Jesus apparent death and resurrection, there is no mention of Jesus in them. There are many pagan stories that confirm events in the Old Testament, such as flood accounts from Egypt, Byzantine, Greece, Norway, among others, all quite similar to Noah's Ark, only idylized with their own "hero's". Saying a document that's copied from documents containing mythological stories of heroism and morality tales, confirms those documents, is a non-issue.

BrianC

04-10-2006, 11:44 PM

So far, every one has been very wrong on all this. Allow me to refer you to THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS, Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE,

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Z

I don't have time at the moment to read through the link you gave me, but I will later in the week. Do you mind explaining the main idea behind this website and what it's suggesting?

BrianC

04-10-2006, 11:49 PM

But we have original egyptian documents that survived 5000+ years. Is "the word of God" so susceptible to degredation that even less than 100 years a new copy must be made and destroy the old, while the words of heathens are easily preserved for millenia?

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Old Testament. Even though they were written during, and some time after Jesus apparent death and resurrection, there is no mention of Jesus in them. There are many pagan stories that confirm events in the Old Testament, such as flood accounts from Egypt, Byzantine, Greece, Norway, among others, all quite similar to Noah's Ark, only idylized with their own "hero's". Saying a document that's copied from documents containing mythological stories of heroism and morality tales, confirms those documents, is a non-issue.

Actually, there are 270 different flood stories worldwide, and each race has one. You named a few...but there are TONS more. And MANY of the flood stories say that eight people survived on a boat, and that's where their people come from. Cooincidence? I doubt it. And I highly doubt someone went worldwide back then making up this flood story for each race/culture/country to spread this mass lie so future generations like us could be confused about it. LOL No, the flood story is quite alive and well in every culture in the world. You just have to do some research to find their flood stories. Practically EVERY culture has one and again, most say that eight people survived on a boat and that's their ancestors. Do some research on this.

BrianC

04-10-2006, 11:50 PM

But we have original egyptian documents that survived 5000+ years. Is "the word of God" so susceptible to degredation that even less than 100 years a new copy must be made and destroy the old, while the words of heathens are easily preserved for millenia?

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the Old Testament. Even though they were written during, and some time after Jesus apparent death and resurrection, there is no mention of Jesus in them. There are many pagan stories that confirm events in the Old Testament, such as flood accounts from Egypt, Byzantine, Greece, Norway, among others, all quite similar to Noah's Ark, only idylized with their own "hero's". Saying a document that's copied from documents containing mythological stories of heroism and morality tales, confirms those documents, is a non-issue.

It's been quite some time since I've read anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I seem to remember them also confirming the New Testament as well, including Jesus. Where are you getting this information about them not containing anything but the Old Testament? Again, it's been quite some time since I looked in to it, so I may be remembering something different...

DarkWolf

04-11-2006, 02:05 PM

Actually, there are 270 different flood stories worldwide, and each race has one. You named a few...but there are TONS more. And MANY of the flood stories say that eight people survived on a boat, and that's where their people come from. Cooincidence? I doubt it. And I highly doubt someone went worldwide back then making up this flood story for each race/culture/country to spread this mass lie so future generations like us could be confused about it. LOL No, the flood story is quite alive and well in every culture in the world. You just have to do some research to find their flood stories. Practically EVERY culture has one and again, most say that eight people survived on a boat and that's their ancestors. Do some research on this.

Of which I'm well aware... hence why I named a few, and then said "among others".

I'm sure you're also aware that human life most likely originated in the mediterranian valley. And while there's no evidence of any world-wide flood, there's evidence of a massive flood in the mediterranian valley. Doesn't take much effort to connect the dots from here.

It's been quite some time since I've read anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I seem to remember them also confirming the New Testament as well, including Jesus. Where are you getting this information about them not containing anything but the Old Testament? Again, it's been quite some time since I looked in to it, so I may be remembering something different...

A quick google search should get you all the info you need.

BrianC

04-11-2006, 08:48 PM

Of which I'm well aware... hence why I named a few, and then said "among others".

Maybe you should've said among 260 others. lol

I'm sure you're also aware that human life most likely originated in the mediterranian valley. And while there's no evidence of any world-wide flood, there's evidence of a massive flood in the mediterranian valley. Doesn't take much effort to connect the dots from here.

There's evidence worldwide of flooding. Haven't you heard any of the theories that say the U.S. was once covered by an ocean? And all mountains on the planet have evidence of sea life fossils on them. I'd figure you could put 2 and 2 together...

DarkWolf

04-12-2006, 10:04 AM

Maybe you should've said among 260 others. lol

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on limited information.

There's evidence worldwide of flooding. Haven't you heard any of the theories that say the U.S. was once covered by an ocean? And all mountains on the planet have evidence of sea life fossils on them. I'd figure you could put 2 and 2 together...

Perhaps in an effort to at least seem like you're not just pulling these theories out of your ass, you'd like to post some links to where more information could be found? I've been looking, and so far have found nothing that supports your claims.

BrianC

04-15-2006, 09:20 AM

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on limited information.

Limited? lol Sure....

Perhaps in an effort to at least seem like you're not just pulling these theories out of your ass, you'd like to post some links to where more information could be found? I've been looking, and so far have found nothing that supports your claims.

You must be horrible at finding references on the internet. I simply put "fossils mountains" into Google, and the first thing that came up was this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

"Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood."

But then it goes on to try and disprove this, and badly, might I add. It basically says that flooding deposits mountain sediments in valleys below. However, if it's a global flood, and the mountains popped up out of the water as the crust crashed down onto the mantel, you'd have the mountain tops springing up, much unlike a flood we see today, and shells & fossils would have no problem staying put instead of washing away with rain...because at that point, the rain most likely had stopped and the crust was settling, causing mountains to literally "spring up" out of the water, because they were taller than the water's surface. Pretty simple.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm

And again, yet another link you didn't seem to be able to find. I told you satellite images have been found to show that after night fall, a bright red line would show up depicting the path from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. Unfortunately, this site doesn't have the photos, but it does tell the story, as some other sites do, about the satellites used at the time of the Gulf War and how they found the bright red line after nightfall. I can't seem to find the actual photos I originally saw about 7 years ago. Don't know why. But I have seen them before...it's just been quite some time. Again...you should've been able to find this on your own. It was on the second page of results from Google when searching for Satellite Photo "Red Sea". That's all. Pretty simple. Have you ever been to college and had to do a research paper? You might need a class in search engine tactics. This stuff was super easy to find...took all of 2 minutes, maybe...

BrianC

04-15-2006, 09:22 AM

DarkWolf

04-15-2006, 07:03 PM

By the way, there are also satellite images on another site I posted on the "Red Sea Crossing" thread that show the land mass and the path through the water in the Red Sea where they crossed, proving the uplifted sand bar through the middle. Oh, and it had to be dry according to the bible if you read the account. It said it was a dry roadway through the water. Chariot wheels would not have come off as you said in muddy sand. Completely dry...

Which is why I said you should do a little research on high and low tides.

You must be horrible at finding references on the internet. I simply put "fossils mountains" into Google, and the first thing that came up was this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

"Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood."

But then it goes on to try and disprove this, and badly, might I add. It basically says that flooding deposits mountain sediments in valleys below. However, if it's a global flood, and the mountains popped up out of the water as the crust crashed down onto the mantel, you'd have the mountain tops springing up, much unlike a flood we see today, and shells & fossils would have no problem staying put instead of washing away with rain...because at that point, the rain most likely had stopped and the crust was settling, causing mountains to literally "spring up" out of the water, because they were taller than the water's surface. Pretty simple.

Yeah, I saw that link. And it doesn't support your claim. Hence why I said I'm not finding anything to support your claim. Your junk science explaination that's "so simple", would result in the world being ripped apart, and left as a bunch of floating chunks in space.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm

And again, yet another link you didn't seem to be able to find. I told you satellite images have been found to show that after night fall, a bright red line would show up depicting the path from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. Unfortunately, this site doesn't have the photos, but it does tell the story, as some other sites do, about the satellites used at the time of the Gulf War and how they found the bright red line after nightfall. I can't seem to find the actual photos I originally saw about 7 years ago. Don't know why. But I have seen them before...it's just been quite some time. Again...you should've been able to find this on your own. It was on the second page of results from Google when searching for Satellite Photo "Red Sea". That's all. Pretty simple. Have you ever been to college and had to do a research paper? You might need a class in search engine tactics. This stuff was super easy to find...took all of 2 minutes, maybe...

Yes yes, and of course the images are no longer there. Hence why I said, I can't find them. Perhaps the images were removed, because it was found out they were fake, so in order to continue spreading the junk science, the images were removed to eliminate any damning evidence against it.

Again, you have nothing to back up your claims.

zorro

04-15-2006, 09:20 PM

I don't have time at the moment to read through the link you gave me, but I will later in the week. Do you mind explaining the main idea behind this website and what it's suggesting?

FF Bruce uses standard historical methods to demonstrate that the NT is historically reliable. Of course if we were to apply those same tests to Judas, the document will fall apart historically.

Z

BrianC

04-16-2006, 09:19 AM

Which is why I said you should do a little research on high and low tides.

High and low tides don't cause huge sand bar roads through the water... I can't believe you even brought that up. Even reputible scientists don't make that argument, because you'd see large sand bar roads in the water all over the place...

Yeah, I saw that link. And it doesn't support your claim. Hence why I said I'm not finding anything to support your claim. Your junk science explaination that's "so simple", would result in the world being ripped apart, and left as a bunch of floating chunks in space.

It supports my claim just fine. It indicates that people around the world have seen that mountains have ocean life fossils on them like seashells...

Yes yes, and of course the images are no longer there. Hence why I said, I can't find them. Perhaps the images were removed, because it was found out they were fake, so in order to continue spreading the junk science, the images were removed to eliminate any damning evidence against it.

Again, you have nothing to back up your claims.

LOL Oh yeah, I'm sure that's it. They were fake. Because everyone has access to military satellite images during the gulf war indicating tank placements, etc. Boy, you're just full of wonderful accusations aren't ya'?

DarkWolf

04-17-2006, 01:05 PM

High and low tides don't cause huge sand bar roads through the water... I can't believe you even brought that up. Even reputible scientists don't make that argument, because you'd see large sand bar roads in the water all over the place...

You're brain is like a lead brick, isn't it?

LOL Oh yeah, I'm sure that's it. They were fake. Because everyone has access to military satellite images during the gulf war indicating tank placements, etc. Boy, you're just full of wonderful accusations aren't ya'?

Perhaps if they existed, I could take a look at them and figure out if they're fake or not. But alas... they don't exist. So you're left with nothing to support your claim... not even a photoshopped image.

Fobra

04-17-2006, 01:26 PM

Perhaps if they existed, I could take a look at them and figure out if they're fake or not. But alas... they don't exist. So you're left with nothing to support your claim... not even a photoshopped image.
Here's the fallacy in your logic: because he can't find these military photos on the internet, therefore they don't exist. That's an appeal to ignorance fallacy since you assumed that because he never provided the pictures, then your position of them not existing is true and his false. Just because he hasn't supplied them off of the internet doesn't mean they don't exist.

DarkWolf

04-17-2006, 02:21 PM

Here's the fallacy in your logic: because he can't find these military photos on the internet, therefore they don't exist. That's an appeal to ignorance fallacy since you assumed that because he never provided the pictures, then your position of them not existing is true and his false. Just because he hasn't supplied them off of the internet doesn't mean they don't exist.

Except... they don't exist. Seriously. You try looking for them. If someone can provide them, I'd be glad to look them over.

Fobra

04-17-2006, 07:49 PM

Except... they don't exist. Seriously. You try looking for them. If someone can provide them, I'd be glad to look them over.
The point is, just because they 'may' not be on the internet doesn't mean they don't exist.

DarkWolf

04-17-2006, 10:33 PM

The point is, just because they 'may' not be on the internet doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not saying they don't exist, as in "they never existed, he's just making them up", I'm saying, they don't exist as in "they're no longer on the internet". You jump on the fallacy bandwagon too soon. You should maybe take the time to read and comprehend, instead of jumping to conclusions. Don't make the same mistakes Zorro made.

You'll also notice, I offered a possible reason for them not being on the internet anymore.

Yes yes, and of course the images are no longer there. Hence why I said, I can't find them. Perhaps the images were removed, because it was found out they were fake, so in order to continue spreading the junk science, the images were removed to eliminate any damning evidence against it.

I would like to see them, but alas, I cannot.