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

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 ... Read more

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105487 Dec 29, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
You , like so many others, think you can define GOD down into one word of your choosing called "love". If you must use only one word, that word might be power, or sovereign, and from there then you can take the step to love. You can't pick and choose only what you want.
Then what does I John 4:8 mean?
It says that God is love.
In my experiences, usually people who belittle the bible, or make fun of GOD's biblical attributes are atheists.
You probably mean that usually people who belittle the Bible or make fun of God’s Biblical attributes are people whom you are quick to call atheists.
In my experience, Creationists are often quick to slap that label on people.
That is probably because Evolution has favored members who are on the alert for enemies and predators.
But now that we are living in a comfortable lifestyle with no real enemies or predators, we are left with an instinct which we no longer need.
So the Creationists have to vent their adrenalin on an imaginary enemy.
Funny that Creationists declare that Evolution is false, and then turn right around and demonstrate that Evolution is true.

Anyway, even if there is a God, I don’t see how he could be represented truthfully by any of the world’s major religions.
Even if there is a God, that doesn’t mean that every man who lives a good Moslem life spends eternity with 75 plump and voluptuous prostitutes.
Even if there is a God, that doesn’t mean that Krishna cloned himself and simultaneously danced with every cowmaiden in the countryside.
Even if there is a God, that doesn’t mean that there have been talking snakes and talking donkeys, that Jesus is living somewhere up there in a physical body with no oxygen, or that they had funny-looking circles in Solomon’s time.
If you are not an atheist, what are you? I hope you aren't one of those weak kneed agnostics. That is just an atheist with no balls.
Your accusation of spinelessness is unfair. I used to attend skeptic group meetings. On four occasions, I took on the group single-handed. One member said there was no God. I asked him how he knew. One member said that there was no such thing as magic. I asked him how he knew. One member said that the soul had no pre-existence. I asked him how he knew. One member said that animals had no consciousness. I asked him how he knew.

I declare a plague o’ both of your houses and I attack both of your houses.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105488 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's talking about believers doubting, they already believed, they just doubted a "message." You are playing a dishonest game:
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 3:12 - Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Seems your bible has more negative things to say about non-believers than ... oh wait, that's right, your verse was talking about doubting humans, not those who don't believe. You love to play this dishonest game.
You are to be commended for providing an abundance of specific data this time, enough even to make it quite clear that you didn't read/ponder Acts 17 carefully. Those being targetted with the message were Jews, who had shown themselves to be among the least likely to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Besides, regardless of who they were, they were commended for their approach to handling info. They wanted to see and examine the data before they would believe.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105489 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
We can tell the difference by the bones. Just because they are called Omo 1 and 2 doesn't mean they are the same bones.
Is it intentional that your side so consistently draws attention to the wrong point? One could easily get the impression you're trying to avoid the real point. In this case it is the fact that neither set of bones rated a higher evaluation than appearing to be Homo Sapiens.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105490 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are to be commended for providing an abundance of specific data this time, enough even to make it quite clear that you didn't read/ponder Acts 17 carefully. Those being targetted with the message were Jews, who had shown themselves to be among the least likely to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Besides, regardless of who they were, they were commended for their approach to handling info. They wanted to see and examine the data before they would believe.
What is there to "ponder?" You are just restating what I said now, but prior this you inferred it meant non-believers. I do not like your dishonest games, and if your god was real, I doubt it would care for them either. Believing someone is a "prophet" or "messiah," whatever you want to all it, is vastly different than taking the existence of a god on blind faith. You could even be an atheist and believe that one of the people named Jesus in that time was a real prophet, and you'd still be an atheist because you would still not believe in the god. There are a ton of atheists who are religious, and many who believe in religious figures even. That's one of the points that escapes you, you cannot separate your beliefs, even though they are a collection of beliefs, not just one.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105491 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it intentional that your side so consistently draws attention to the wrong point? One could easily get the impression you're trying to avoid the real point. In this case it is the fact that neither set of bones rated a higher evaluation than appearing to be Homo Sapiens.
Now you are projecting, and rather poorly. You cannot even twist his reply so you pull the "you people" fallacy. Is Pluto a planet? No. Why? Because on further inspection we learned it doesn't fit our definition of a planet, so we stopped calling it what it wasn't. But it's still Pluto. Things are not named in the specific order they arise all the time, get over it, things get relabeled all the time, get over it. If you can't handle change, you are in the wrong universe.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105492 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just remember that god made Mary a virgin again after she had given birth...Ha!
:-)
Where did you get that info? This is a prime example for showing the value of providing, or at least researching confirming data before risking making asinine ass-ertions such as you did in this case. Such fundamental errors would be so easily avoided if you would just discipline yourself to seek confirming data before shooting off your keyboard.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105493 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about great apes??
We are related to them of course.
I am talking about lifeforms with a human-like form. Do you think great apes qualify?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105494 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about lifeforms with a human-like form. Do you think great apes qualify?
Now you have to be babbling, we are apes, so yes, they do qualify.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105495 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Where was I wrong.
JWs do not believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible and Christianity in general (John 16:12; Matthew 24:36). They only know what has been made known.

They do not believe they will be the only ones to inherit the earth (Acts 24:15)

One does not get disfellowshipped for having doubts about a teaching. Rather he is encouraged and assisted to continue studying, pondering, and prayfully meditating on the data, and beyond that, waiting on Jehovah for updates (Proverbs 2:1-5, Matthew 24:45-47).

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105496 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
JWs do not believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible and Christianity in general (John 16:12; Matthew 24:36). They only know what has been made known.
They do not believe they will be the only ones to inherit the earth (Acts 24:15)
One does not get disfellowshipped for having doubts about a teaching. Rather he is encouraged and assisted to continue studying, pondering, and prayfully meditating on the data, and beyond that, waiting on Jehovah for updates (Proverbs 2:1-5, Matthew 24:45-47).
No, one is only condemned for requiring evidence of your god claim ... the rest, as you pointed out, is made up as you go anyway.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105497 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Conclusive data? Do you mean verifiable? Verifiable data, one item, that's it. One verifiable piece of evidence that produces the same results for everyone, and you have something to supports your assertion. But ... nothing is ever "confirmed," if by confirmed you mean proven, just as nothing is ever disproven. There is no quantifiable way to predict how much evidence of the same caliber, in other words at least verifiable, it would take to convince anyone specifically, but if you can come up with one bit of such evidence, I will begin to take the claim seriously myself.
Is there conclusive data confirming that Earth is not cubic in shape? Additionally, is it conclusive that Earth has nothing visible and tangible (i.e. no solid member/structure) connecting it to anything beyond its atmosphere?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105498 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is there to "ponder?" You are just restating what I said now, but prior this you inferred it meant non-believers. I do not like your dishonest games, and if your god was real, I doubt it would care for them either. Believing someone is a "prophet" or "messiah," whatever you want to all it, is vastly different than taking the existence of a god on blind faith. You could even be an atheist and believe that one of the people named Jesus in that time was a real prophet, and you'd still be an atheist because you would still not believe in the god. There are a ton of atheists who are religious, and many who believe in religious figures even. That's one of the points that escapes you, you cannot separate your beliefs, even though they are a collection of beliefs, not just one.
Here's your statement,

"That's talking about believers doubting."

I just simply provided data confirming you were incorrect. It's as simple as that. The Jews were not believers in Jesus as the Messiah which is the truth the disciples were there teaching them.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105499 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are projecting, and rather poorly. You cannot even twist his reply so you pull the "you people" fallacy. Is Pluto a planet? No. Why? Because on further inspection we learned it doesn't fit our definition of a planet, so we stopped calling it what it wasn't. But it's still Pluto. Things are not named in the specific order they arise all the time, get over it, things get relabeled all the time, get over it. If you can't handle change, you are in the wrong universe.
You make a valid point. If you're acknowledging they may not have been the bones of modern humans, that's all that is necessary.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105500 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you have to be babbling, we are apes, so yes, they do qualify.
As you noted in a nearby post, what's in a label? We are structurally relatively similar. That's the important point.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#105501 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, one is only condemned for requiring evidence of your god claim ... the rest, as you pointed out, is made up as you go anyway.
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#105502 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there conclusive data confirming that Earth is not cubic in shape? Additionally, is it conclusive that Earth has nothing visible and tangible (i.e. no solid member/structure) connecting it to anything beyond its atmosphere?
No on both counts. Yet, you demand such a level of evidence regarding your Bible stories being false while not demanding anywhere near that level of evidence regarding them being true. Hypocrisy is the only way the Bible can be true.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#105503 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your statement,
"That's talking about believers doubting."
I just simply provided data confirming you were incorrect. It's as simple as that. The Jews were not believers in Jesus as the Messiah which is the truth the disciples were there teaching them.
The disciples, and all the earliest Christians, were Jews. It's Paul who wanted to bring gentiles into the fold on a equal footing with the Jewish membership. You might want to learn something about your religion before trying to be an authority on it.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#105504 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a valid point. If you're acknowledging they may not have been the bones of modern humans, that's all that is necessary.
A DNA test will not 100% prove you are your mother's child, but it can show that there is a 1:100,000,000 chance that someone other than the woman tested is your mother. You are saying that because it's not 100%, DNA tests are useless. Your premise, your problem. Stop expecting 100% conclusive certainty, as it's an unrealistic standard in ANY scientific field. Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of how science works should know this. That you continue to demand what's been many times explained to you as an irrationally high degree of confidence demonstrates that you either don't understand science and don't wish to, or you do understand and you're merely dishonest. Ignorant or dishonest? Your pick.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#105505 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
Nobody has ever presented any. If you're calling hearsay decades after the fact by people with a vested interest in making themselves and their religion more important than they were at the time "evidence," your standard of evidence is laughable.
Existence is empirically demonstrable or else it is as good as non-existent.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#105506 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
You have evidence for God?? May we see it??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 8 min Chimney1 901
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min Chimney1 154,628
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 30 min Ooogah Boogah 178,093
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 50 min Dogen 17,917
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web