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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#110358 Feb 16, 2013
.
It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.

No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.

We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.

We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.

We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.

And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.

We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired were authentic until the second century after Christ.

We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish. Robert G. Ingersoll, 1894
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110359 Feb 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
.
It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.
No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.
No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.
We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.
We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.
God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.
And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.
We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired were authentic until the second century after Christ.
We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish. Robert G. Ingersoll, 1894
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).

BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#110360 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).
BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.
Do you think that the list is lying??
Have you heard/read any of this before...by other writers??
Do you have a opinion of Mr. Ingersall's research??
Do you think he is a credible scholar??
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#110361 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.
The deluded do tend to view demonstrable reality as a mere matter of opinion. Of course, nobody cares what the delusional "think." Well, except the Republican party.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#110362 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but I know something you don't know ... the mare is not left-handed!
Distraction.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110363 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
.
It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line.
Your "author" has no idea if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. His "intelligent and honest theologians " are labeled that simply because they have the same liberal agenda.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110364 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a parrot, and your parroting my statement in this case confirms there are two sides to whether there are two sides. QED. Also, I accept the two sides (in both cases), so no anathema to me.

When I find a quote that is evidence of psychological projection I simply repeat it back to the sender so they can see that what they wrote is more supportive of the "other side".

You don't accept two sides. You MAKE two sides. Science indicates that the evidence only supports one possibility.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110365 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).
BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.

These are not the assertions. This is the understanding of the bible that has resulted from hundreds of years of scholarship.

That any of those things were true are the assertions that you cannot support with data.

If you have any data at all that Moses wrote anything then I would be happy to see it. Til then I will not hold my breath.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110366 Feb 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your "author" has no idea if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. His "intelligent and honest theologians " are labeled that simply because they have the same liberal agenda.

Incorrect. The author knows that Moses did not write the Pentateuch as it was first written nearly a thousand years after the death of Moses (assuming he even ever existed).

Why can't fundamentalists deal with the reality. I find value in the bible based on what is there, not based on who wrote it. Is that so hard?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110367 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that the list is lying??
Have you heard/read any of this before...by other writers??
Do you have a opinion of Mr. Ingersall's research??
Do you think he is a credible scholar??
Since none of the research was provided/referenced, I don't know if the list is lying, mistaken, or born from ignorance.

Some of it I have heard/read before, also unaccompanied by confirming data.

None of Mr. Ingersall's research was provided/referenced, but I do know that I have more data available to me in 2013 than he had in 1894. Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.

I know nothing of Mr. Ingersall beyond what you provided. Based on presently available data, I know that his assertions are either unconfirmed or wrong. That snapshot does not smack of credibility.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110368 Feb 17, 2013
Nice summation Dogen.

Just in case your link was not opened:

As logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110369 Feb 17, 2013
Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.

That's using the word 'know' in the sense of 'make i up', figment of someones imagination of arbitrary choice.

I recall that several people here have allready stresses that 'know 'in a scientific way would be reasoning by induction. And based on proven facts.
So even though a singular mention of an occurence, has no further information, we can still make a statement about how credible it would be to f.i. treat it as a fact in the material world of knowledge and not the imaginary world of believe.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110370 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Nice summation Dogen.
Just in case your link was not opened:
As logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]
Yes.

KAB's eternal wail: "That's not the data! That's just a link to where the data is!"

Sheesh.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110371 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Summary statements about data are not the data. A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data. The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid.
It's called science, as in providing a reasonable explanation for the data.
It requires interpretation of the data.

All sites shown, have data and we even provided links to books that teach the method for gathering reliable data, how to understand the gathered data, and how to present it. As well as when artefacts and false data can occur.
So nothing get's thrown out as you suggest but wold be anomalous data that needs an explanation.
And basicly this entire line of bringing up 4500 BP is based on an example Dogen provided to explain the statistical method and when it is perceived as reliable. Not on the actual paper on the cheetah bottle neck.

I guess you forgot that.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110372 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement about summary statements about data are not the data. A statements such as "A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data" is not the data. Your statement that "The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid" may not be warranted as a valid statement.
That's meta-talk and way over his head.
Like i said if someone dismisses Tangled Banks clear and concise presentation, the problem would definitely be theirs.

4500 was indeed a new goal-post we started out somewhere around 5000. And everyone understood that is was an arbitrarily chose number. Something to work around. So basicly there are no sides when it comes to the ballpark number.

We also addeed that the hebrew bible does not give any indication whatsoever.
Our 'side' understands that parables are stories with a, or rather several lessons in them.
Also their calendar was chosen arbitrarily.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110373 Feb 17, 2013
Do we know all that?...word of me.

We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

Well it's all about persian mores so nothing to do with hebrews.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#110374 Feb 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your "author" has no idea if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. His "intelligent and honest theologians " are labeled that simply because they have the same liberal agenda.
That was written by Robert Ingersoll in the late 1800's. You see they had already noticed that there were anachronisms and other unsolvable problems with the Pentateuch's text. Enough problems that many many of the scholars believe Moses did not write it and that possibly Moses was fictitious.

Higher criticism has found 2 creation stories and 2 flood stories blended together in the Genesis chapter, and then there are the anachronisms of Abraham and Ur of the Chaldee's and the rescue of Lot from the city of Dan, and the list of Edomite Kings that was not known to Moses.

There is also two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham. Two stories about the naming of Isaac. Two stories about the renaming of Jacob. Two versions of the Ten commandments. Some refer to God as Yahweh and others as Elohim.

All of this and more comes from the Documentary Hypothesis and is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.

If you add to all of this the fact that the Exodus is a fictional story that kind of leaves Moses in a vacuum. Was he real or not.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#110375 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since none of the research was provided/referenced, I don't know if the list is lying, mistaken, or born from ignorance.
Some of it I have heard/read before, also unaccompanied by confirming data.
None of Mr. Ingersall's research was provided/referenced, but I do know that I have more data available to me in 2013 than he had in 1894. Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.
I know nothing of Mr. Ingersall beyond what you provided. Based on presently available data, I know that his assertions are either unconfirmed or wrong. That snapshot does not smack of credibility.
Refer to the comment above. There is much more to this then I wrote of.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#110376 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Do we know all that?...word of me.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.
Well it's all about persian mores so nothing to do with hebrews.
I think there is a tremendous amount of knowledge about the Bible that most fundamentalists don't know about and probably won't even read if presented to them.

They tend to keep the head in a Dark Ages kind of place where just some people even knew the Bible. They read every page as literal and leave no room for post interpretation.

When presented with known factual evidence they just reject, reject. Sad really.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110377 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there is a tremendous amount of knowledge about the Bible that most fundamentalists don't know about and probably won't even read if presented to them.
They tend to keep the head in a Dark Ages kind of place where just some people even knew the Bible. They read every page as literal and leave no room for post interpretation.
When presented with known factual evidence they just reject, reject. Sad really.
Agree.
Though i do not see the same level of confusion in the jewish reaction. But Saadia Gaon (a period of time) and a scholar and elder of that time allready wrote paraphrased: that which can not be explained by rational means must be read as metaphore.
Christians seem the get all fired up, confused and defensive.
Or simply ignore it alltogether.
Outspoken rejection i've rarely come accross, only in defence against Islamic assertions.
But the pick and choose method is noticable.

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 min Mugwump 175,409
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Chimney1 126,566
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr Chimney1 814
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Brian_G 13,571
More Theories to Disprove Creation 5 hr The Dude 25
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 5 hr The Dude 993
Quran descendants of apes and pigs cursed by Al... (Sep '08) 7 hr DanFromSmithville 10
Ohio one step closer to allowing creationism in... 8 hr DanFromSmithville 214

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE