It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Comments (Page 3,580)

Showing posts 71,581 - 71,600 of126,980
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Andrews, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72429
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
:-)
Verse's which tell exactly HOW God created, supporting an abiogenic origin of life:

Gen 1:11 - And God said - LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH grass, the herb yielding seed and tree yielding fruit whose see is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so."

Gen 1:12 - And THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good."

Gen. 1:20 - And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth."

Gen 1:24 - And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so."

Gen. 2:7 - And the Lord God FORMED MAN of the DUST of the GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Gen 2:19 - And OUT OF THE GROUND the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...."
:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72430
Jan 6, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Likewise!!!

Translation: you are trying to keep up with me in intellect, humor and literacy by copying what I say.

Not the letter my friend, the spirit!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72431
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Whatever, I made my point.

You made up rules and did not stick to them yourself. If that is making a point,.....

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> If you stick with the record,(gospels) and put the resurrection to the same test as any matter of law,(true beyond a reasonable doubt) then the resurrection, based on the evidence, can only be considered true.

No, by that standard,... ie. without faith, the evidence fails and the resurrection MUST be considered false. You have second hand stories, that disagree, none written by an eye witness, of an improbable event. That would never even get heard in court. You could not even get an arraignment with that!

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> Men don't pay the price that these men paid for a lie.

What witness died? Mary was still alive.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> Now you can feel free to reject anything you want, but it is much easier to prove that Jesus existed, and the validity and date of the gospels than it is to prove Jesus rose from the dead.

That should concern you greatly as the validity and date of the gospels is very much in question. The earliest is written over a generation after the fact and it is the one that has no original post resurrection footage!!!! Only a few verses added much later. None of the earliest existing versions of Mark have the last Chapter and textual analysis says it was not written by the same person.
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72432
Jan 6, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That should concern you greatly as the validity and date of the gospels is very much in question. The earliest is written over a generation after the fact and it is the one that has no original post resurrection footage!!!! Only a few verses added much later. None of the earliest existing versions of Mark have the last Chapter and textual analysis says it was not written by the same person.
Let's not forget the Gnostic Gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72433
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
:-)

So the bible contridicts itself. We knew that.

I also have noticed that Eve was left out of this passage. Ignoring the fact that Adam and Lilith were the ones co-created and Eve was just her understudy, replacement player, or "scab" if you will.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72434
Jan 6, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
This may assist you: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Frighteningly, I understood ever word of it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72435
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I know you don't like it because I answered your question. I know you don't like it because you didn't think it could be done. I know you don't like my answer because it makes you look bad. Well, while I am listing things you don't like, don't like the fact that I'm not allowing you to change the question to a completely different question as if I never answered the first one.

You have a vast and vivid fantasy life.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Andrews, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72436
Jan 6, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
Manning and Luck. Then just Luck.
It will be difficult and we know how it ends. Like Montana and Young.
Trivial question: who did the Colts pass up to take Manning.
Yeah - this draft looks like another "Manning-Leaf" type decision. So who is the Manning and who is the Leaf?

Interesting article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/338933-the...
LowellGuy

Port Republic, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72437
Jan 6, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Frighteningly, I understood ever word of it.
Of course you did, of course you did, of course you did, of course you did.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72438
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever, I made my point. If you stick with the record,(gospels) and put the resurrection to the same test as any matter of law,(true beyond a reasonable doubt) then the resurrection, based on the evidence, can only be considered true. Men don't pay the price that these men paid for a lie.
Now you can feel free to reject anything you want, but it is much easier to prove that Jesus existed, and the validity and date of the gospels than it is to prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Should I just let a kitten go for this one?
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72439
Jan 6, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I know you don't like it because I answered your question. I know you don't like it because you didn't think it could be done. I know you don't like my answer because it makes you look bad. Well, while I am listing things you don't like, don't like the fact that I'm not allowing you to change the question to a completely different question as if I never answered the first one.
But what about when your answers are bullsh*t?(shrug)
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72440
Jan 6, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Counting beads is therapeutic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Dig it.
MichiganGEL

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72441
Jan 6, 2012
 
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
Verse's which tell exactly HOW God created, supporting an abiogenic origin of life:
Gen 1:11 - And God said - LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH grass, the herb yielding seed and tree yielding fruit whose see is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so."
Gen 1:12 - And THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good."...
So, unless God is in the picture, the law of entropy, as well as lack of design/information input, would more than likely make abiogenesis impossible, right?
Naturally occurring chemical reactions can only proceed so far... Beyond that, there's no 'natural' impetus for the resultant molecules to "come to life," i.e., combine, replicate and gain in complexity.

So, when God says, "Let the earth bring forth...," that's a creative command - not a granting of permission.
MichiganGEL

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72442
Jan 6, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
A standard cubit is determined thusly.
With a hadful of small stones, stand four cubits from a circle of two cubits diameter. Toss the stones toward the circle. A standard cubit is the number of stones that land within the circle multiplied by one pyramid inch. If the barley is not ripe, add one.
Close, but not quite...
You take the number of stones in the circle and "cube it"!... ;-)
MichiganGEL

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72443
Jan 6, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
... Paul was the deciding factor. Without Paul creating Paulism in the name of Christ, "Christianity" would not have survived. However, it DID survive and grew to maturity in Rome and in Roman controlled states...
Do you have any references that would help us to understand why you believe Paul would want to pervert and propagate Jesus' teachings (especially at the risk to his own career and life)?

In the first place, why would Saul (before he became 'Paul') abandon his safe and influential (and probably prosperous) position in the Pharisaical "hierarchy" to risk Jewish "excommunication" join in such a risky movement???

Of course the NT says it was because of his road-to-Damascus experience... Do you buy that, or do you have another explanation?
KAB

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72444
Jan 6, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, here we go! Another example of god inability to control translations of the bible.
OK, KAB, you're making the claim that there is another interpretation for birds in Genesis. This is nothing more than an assertion. Please provide the data to support your claim or it can be dismissed.
Read Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:13, and Lev. 11:21. Note that the verses from Leviticus refer to flying creatures, one clearly referring to birds, the other to insects. Now find Hebrew renderings of the 3 verses ( blueletterbible.org is one source) and notice that the same word is used in each to refer to the flying creatures, from insects to birds.

Also note the difference between providing data, this being an example proving that I do, and making assertions which is what the evolution side does most consistently.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72445
Jan 6, 2012
 
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text>
So, unless God is in the picture, the law of entropy, as well as lack of design/information input, would more than likely make abiogenesis impossible, right?
Naturally occurring chemical reactions can only proceed so far... Beyond that, there's no 'natural' impetus for the resultant molecules to "come to life," i.e., combine, replicate and gain in complexity.
So, when God says, "Let the earth bring forth...," that's a creative command - not a granting of permission.
Yes, that's precisely the scientific consequences of Bible quotes.

Grabbing kitty now...
KAB

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72446
Jan 6, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply referenced the post. No statement.
I was asked for an example of the evolution side not addressing my post but just jumping to another subject, and that's what I provided, thus once again proving their assertion that they don't do that, wrong. I think the evolution side has been calling that a lie, the only difference being that they don't bother to prove their assertions. I do.
KAB

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72447
Jan 6, 2012
 
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
But it did include time variables, and Amos and Hoffman very clearly stated that the first one - the "out of Africa" migration - occurred 50,000 years ago.
The second bottleneck was referenced to occur during the Beringia migration - which has been estimated anywhere from 12,000 - 20,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
In their own words:
" We uncover strong signals of two distinct bottlenecks, one as we **left** Africa and one as we entered the Americas across the Bering land bridge."
-and-
"There is a strong consensus that modern humans originated in Africa and **moved out** to colonize the world approximately 50,000 years ago."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
<quoted text>
And the Middle East bottleneck occurred 50,000 years ago as humans migrated out of Africa to the Middle East. You can refer to Fig.4 and see that the Middle East was the closest and first destination for humans as they migrated out of Africa.
In addition to Fig. 4, Amos and Hoffman write:
"...populations in the Middle East are nearer to the origin than some of the within-Africa populations."
Here is an Oct 8, 2009 "Science News" article about the Amos and Hoffman paper, in which the author writes:
"The team uncovered strong signs of this imbalance between rare alleles and heterozygosity in two populations--one, in people living today in the Middle East, and the other in the Yakut, who live near the Bering Strait. That indicated to the researchers that the first bottleneck occurred as people migrated out of Africa to the Middle East about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, and the second, 19,000 kilometers away, when they crossed the ancient land bridge in the Bering Strait to the Americas."
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/10...
I don't think a Middle East bottleneck 50,000 years ago is going to help your global flood catastrophe hypothesis, which you claim occurred 4500 years ago.
You seem to think that everything written in an article is determined from the data being reported in the article. Amos and Hoffman do not claim that the 50,000 or 12,000 - 20,000 years are determined by their data. If you read carefully and understand what they did you will realize that.

Their data also did not determine that humans migrated out of Africa. It determined where the bottlenecks were geographically.
KAB

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72448
Jan 6, 2012
 
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that the data points to a point-of-origin bottleneck in the Middle East that happened 50,000 years ago - supporting the "out of Africa" migration, and not the hypothetical global flood catastrophe claimed to have occurred 4500 years ago.
I do realize that the 50,000 years was not determined by the data in the study. It was determined by other info, and that's another discussion.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 71,581 - 71,600 of126,980
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

12 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Dogen 168,479
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr SevenTee 105,891
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr MikeF 13,471
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 13 hr MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Tue ChristineM 13,936
Science News (Sep '13) Tue nanoanomaly 2,670
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... Tue MikeF 4
•••
•••
•••
•••