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 ... Full Story

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109276 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE NOTHING!!!!
Correct, Mr Double Negative. We have evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109277 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>THere you go asking ignorantly for scientific evidence for the supernateral. Everything you claim evolution answers, creationism answers equally well, and for those evolution can't answer, like the origin of life, consciousness, irreducable complexity, the anthropic principle,....etc etc....creation is the the best explanation. Matter has never been observed able to create a mind to observe itself.<quoted text>Evidently I understand it better than you do. I understand it enough to know it's BS!!!! I don't have the faith you guys do in the "magic" that evolution performs!!!
Wrong again Marky. Creationism cannot explain all sorts of things, if they could there might actually be a THEORY of Creationism. They cannot explain the fossil record, they cannot explain nested hierarchies. They cannot explain ERV's. I could go on but I figure it is three strikes and you are out.

Now as to your things that evolution "cannot" explain:

Irreducible complexity. Hmm, you might have an argument, in reality all you are stating is "you can't explain this" and you forget the extremely important word that should follow "yet". Idiots like you have tended to pick problems that they thought were inexplicable using evolution only to find out that since it takes several years AFTER a problem is discovered for it to be solved, and since the popular press is usually several years behind the research, the problem has been solved or is solved very shortly after IDiots present their claim. Evolution of the the immune system, claimed in court by Behe to be "irreducibly complex", solved. He was surround be a literal fortress of papers and books that explained how it was solved. The rotator flagellum, solved. Eye evolution, solved. All of these so called "irreducibly complex" problems have been solved. Today that is taken as the boy who cried "wolf". He has cried it so often that no one pays any attention to him anymore.

The anthropic principal is a tautology at best and does not prove anything.

Oops, matter has been observed to create itself. There are several experiments and tests that show it happening. Google search the Casimir effect for one.

So you still have nothing. What a surprise. Call me when you do.
KAB

United States

#109278 Jan 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, you are claiming to know the one true religion and by coincidence it just happens to be yours.
I can't remember, did I mention being tired of you. Well that was last week. Today is another day. I am still tired but I am willing to make some effort.
That's it. Done now.
Perhaps some background regarding the order of events will prove helpful in forming your perception. I was not born into my present religion. It has been acquired by long term continuing comprehensive study of both the physical and spiritual world. In short, there is no coincidence involved. I have chosen my religion because it is what has proven to be not in conflict with confirmed data, physical and documentary.
KAB

United States

#109279 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole idea that the Supreme Being and Master of the Universe, actually has a "real name" made of noises vocalised from created vocal chords into the created ear to have an impact only on created material eardrums is just kind of absurd. Sort of primitive, superstition magic spell level thinking right at its core.
Tell you what, if I decided to call God Wallabogiemunchkin but still observed the right attitude to the one and only Wallabogiemunchkin just as the Bible or the Quran demanded, would that make ANY difference at all to the Supreme Being?
The "name" (identifier) stems from a concept not sounds, just as the concept of ignorance is not a word or sound, but we give it a label so we can handily talk about it. If I don't use a recognized label, discussion and clear communication involving the concept becomes more difficult.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109280 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care what people think. Now.....BACK TO THE TOPIC!!!
I doubt whether you even know what the topic is about!
All you have been doing is shifting goalposts and trhowing in aunt sallies (a.k.a. strawmen) that we do not refute because you do!
The rest and particularly Kittenkoder, apparently understands that this is what bringing up and refuting a deflection is about and therefore called strawmen.
It leads away from the actual topic or discussion point, and is introduced for that purpose. But is thus irrelevant and hides ignorance or demonstrates the incapabiity to concede a point to the other party.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109281 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, Mr Double Negative. We have evidence.
That we do. But he does not care about evidence (or lacks understanding and the energy to get to grips with scientific articles) but frankly stated that he does not care what anyone thinks.

It's the most pointless poster, by far.
KAB

United States

#109282 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
More than that, it has been refuted.
<quoted text>
Require? What the hell does that mean? It says what it says.
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,

Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4

However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.

Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,

Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.

This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
KAB

United States

#109283 Jan 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How cold is the Earth if the sun is not visible anywhere?
Have you not been outside on a uniformly densely overcast summer day?
KAB

United States

#109284 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that all you got out of that?
My earlier posts on the subject had more references, but this is adequate to end the discussion.
Other parts of the references state that we know how the name was pronounced. Which is correct? The discussion still lacks resolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109285 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
No?

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought 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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
KAB wrote:
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Agreed, it is.
KAB wrote:
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
Sorry, not what is written.
KAB

United States

#109286 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No?
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought 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.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
<quoted text>
Agreed, it is.
<quoted text>
Sorry, not what is written.
Neither is

Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4

what is written.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109287 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
what is written.
I gave you the verses. It *is* what is written. Explain yourself.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109288 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was known that Mercury violated Newton's law even before Einstein. It was one of the things that piqued Einsteins curiosity and got him working on the subject.
Yeah I know, but don't spoil my jokes!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109289 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
Wow. An admission of apologetics.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109291 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.

Actually, the narrative (originally a poetic verse) is not harmonious with the physical data.

But as long as you can pretend....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109292 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Other parts of the references state that we know how the name was pronounced. Which is correct? The discussion still lacks resolution.

Incorrect, as usual.

1. There are references to pronunciation back to the 1st century.
2. Hebrew is essentially a dead language and has changed less than Latin has in the last 2000 years.
3. The meanings of diacritical marks has not changed and it was the in the leaving out of these meanings that lead to the pronunciation error "Jehovah".
4. No modern scholar would make this same error today.
LowellGuy

United States

#109293 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps some background regarding the order of events will prove helpful in forming your perception. I was not born into my present religion. It has been acquired by long term continuing comprehensive study of both the physical and spiritual world. In short, there is no coincidence involved. I have chosen my religion because it is what has proven to be not in conflict with confirmed data, physical and documentary.
And at the expense of your critical thinking skills.
LowellGuy

United States

#109294 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not been outside on a uniformly densely overcast summer day?
Where the entire face of the planet was entirely covered in clouds and not even sunlight was visible? Never.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109295 Jan 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the entire face of the planet was entirely covered in clouds and not even sunlight was visible? Never.
And they never let a little logic get in the way of ardent positions.

1. Looking at the history of all the creation narratives (wiki) or allusions to it (4 in all) we find mesopotamian tales and greek influences (everyone forgets that asia was frankly invested with greeks and thus influences) of matter so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, and which can be devided ever smaller.(Democritos f.i.)

2. If no eyes and awareness are around, who would be there to see?

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/ge...
There is an interesting Ugaritic phrase tu-a-bi-(u?) that may be the same as the Hebrew tohu wa bohu. In one of the polyglot vocabularies tu-a-bi-(u) is equivalent to the Akkadian na-bal-ku-tum and Hurrian tap-su-hu-(u)m-me (RS 20.123:II:23; Tsumura, 1989, 23). The Akkadian phrase occurs twice in the Atr-Hasis Epic. The earths womb is said to be na-bal-ku-tum or barren (out of order). It is parallel with the phrase "no plants growing" (Lambert and Millard, 1969, 108:49, 110:59). It is also used for the older phrase u-ul ul-da which clearly means barren, parallel to the phrase "no plants were growing" (Ibid, 78:4).

The LXX
h de gh hn aoratos kai akataskeuastos - But the earth was invisible and unformed

The LXX translates tohu wa bohu as aoratos kai akataskeuastos which means "invisible and unformed." This same word aoratos "invisible" is similar to Hebrew 11:3 ek fainomenwn, meaning "out of unseen things" the world was created. This seems to be related to the platonic ides that the visible world came from the invisible world including the idea of logos.

Another possibility is the way Josephus may have understood it that the earth was covered with water and thick clouds and therefore could not be seen (LCL, 1930, 15).

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109296 Jan 29, 2013
na-(bal-ku-tum)
beel-master
not- ordered ( set, fitting, control/ruled/ position/path)-fused/seal-arm.
UNDIVIDED CLUMP/whole
Or maybe unconnected or uncontrolled.
Naming was giving things existence in the days of yore ( or in places were childmortality is still high), no guided path/unknown.
TUM as used in the text on exorcizing the fat of a sheep before it could be considered pure for offering. i-ir-tum, in which tum is the arm-connection. The hinge one could also say.
ba (noun): piece, share, portion ration wages.
(verb): to give, divide, apportion, to pay.
ra : overflow
ra2: multiplication, times, ways
ku6ba: a sealed creature, shelled.
bara4: to spread out, open wide, released, seperated.
bara5,6:kings

Bara is only used in association with Elohym.
But one probably took the form: par2 +-a-'here': exclude +here= put outside = make to be outstanding.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Richardfs 14,778
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 59 min paul porter 143,184
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 12 hr Dogen 19
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 12 hr Dogen 8
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 22 hr ChromiuMan 966
Why natural selection can't work Fri shaun2000 29
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri dirtclod 801
More from around the web