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

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The proliferation of denominations, all claiming the Bible, detracts from objective/independent observers' belief in the Bible and religion. However, the Bible (i.e., content from oldest available sources) when given consideration independent of denomination can stand believably on its own.
The God of the Bible can and has provided a book of truth which accomplishes his purpose of serving as his standard for human conduct. It also allows those who are so inclined to have issues with it (Hebrews 4:12), but not, so far at least, be able to confirm any error in it.

A "book of truth" that's full of errors, smut, and a lot of bad examples of how to live well. That's not a very good "truth," is it?

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Does not matter. The bible has not changed in 200 years.
<quoted text>
Sure I do. But ideally evidence in the book, multiple attestation, independent historical record and archeological evidence are all facts that can be checked against one another. If the book says one thing and all the other sources point the other way the that needs to be considered. For you, however, if the bible says one thing then all the other sources can be ignored. Your choice. i will personally go with the evidence.

The Bible has not changed in 200 years, but our knowledge of it has. Ingersoll's conclusions were based on his knowledge of the Bible.

I also go with the evidence, including the Bible. You discount the Bible's weighting, viewing it as error ridden tho there is no confirmation of that.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, there is something you think you don't know.
How outstanding!

There is much I don't know, as is true of us all. That's why it is wise to compare notes.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Need I remind you of what JW survivors say about the JW cult? The mind control, the pseudo logic, the ever changing history, the rationalizations, OH THE RATIONALIZATIONS....
And at one time they believe it all. Yet they were able to break free. Maybe, someday, you can too.

As always, just provide some confirming data if you want to get my attention.

[MikeF]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Dataless assertion.

Really? I though it just plain gibberish.

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bible has not changed in 200 years, but our knowledge of it has. Ingersoll's conclusions were based on his knowledge of the Bible.
I also go with the evidence, including the Bible. You discount the Bible's weighting, viewing it as error ridden tho there is no confirmation of that.

Sorry, the bible contains no new information. It was written for everyone to understand, right? What is in it are facts, right?

I find no basis for your claim that our knowledge of the bible has improved. It is all there in one bound volume.

And if you don't like having your own beliefs made fun of then at least you can know that modern scholars basically agree with Ingersoll and THEY DO have all the modern evidence

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
There is much I don't know, as is true of us all. That's why it is wise to compare notes.

You might want to compare notes with JW survivors.

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
As always, just provide some confirming data if you want to get my attention.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/62345273/TheOriginofL...

This list of JW lies about evolution was put together by a recovering JW.

[ChromiuMan]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
You might want to compare notes with JW survivors.

He can't. Technically that would be a reason for being disfellowshipped from the cult. He treads a fine line just conversing with secular "evolutionists." I might contend that it illuminates his reticence toward real data, reason and research.

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowsh...

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Available data teaches us about evolution.

Yes, available data teaches us that evolution is a possible explanation for the complete variety of life.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Opinionated but interesting.
"All modern critical scholars recognize that the Bible is a human composition (although this does not exclude the possibility that it is also inspired). Its purpose is primarily theological, not historical.(History cannot deal with miracles, for example.) And it is tendentious; it exaggerates to make a point. It often speaks metaphorically when it appears to a modern mind to be speaking factually. And, of course, given the fact that it is a human document, it can also be inaccurate. "
Not any data, but still not a bad read. The author was biased enough that his biases are very obvious. His bias is not hidden. I prefer that to someone who pretends to be objective but is, in reality, very biased.
No KAB, I am not pointing a finger at you. Your biases are also very obvious (to everyone except yourself, that is).

How were those scholars characterized, objective or critical?

[KAB]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't depend on your having confirming data...it is the truth.
I gave you names, you can follow up if you wish...or not.

Names notwithstanding, not finding data doesn't confirm the Exodus didn't happen. Wasn't it billed as a "carry in, carry out, low impact" Exodus? Perhaps what Herzog and Finkelstein found was from a different breed of "campers".

[KAB]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
His Wikipedia entry brands him as a 'Christian' and an 'economist.

Anybody can declare himself a Christian, including me, but that's not how it's determined (Daniel 6:5).

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Imagine you have a used and out of print college textbook for which there had been several previous owners. The instructor insists on this book every year. After 10 years the instructor has all the students recopy the book, by hand at the end of the term. After 10 years of using the "new" book he does the same. And so on for hundreds of years.
Over time notes written in the text gets incorporated into some of the books, as do notes from the class, opinions and "corrections" of the students and so forth.
This is essentially the history of all the books of the bible.

That's why you go back to the oldest available, but no longer used copies, to resolve concerns that arise. In the case of the Bible, those are about 2,000 years old, not 10.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
In general that does not work well because most of the oldest manuscripts are hundreds of years removed from the original document, which in turn was written well after the events they describe. Further, most of the authors are pseudonymous and may be giving 2nd, 3rd, 4th,...250th hand accounts.

Hundreds of years removed is much, much better than thousands. The rest of your assertions are, well ... dataless assertions. You also left "inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16) off your list.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Responding with an assertion to an assertion is no help in resolving the issue.
Data is available. Why do you fear looking for it?

I'm looking all the time, but I'm only one person. I'm trying to compare notes (data really). However, it's very difficult to get objective cooperation here.

[KAB]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Egyptian education would have given him credibility over a largely uneducated group.
Still, this is a better question than most of your incredulous pseudoquestions. Generally passages in the bible that do not seem to fit or are inconvenient are often regarded with more authority than things that are just too easy. Examples are the naked boy in the garden with Jesus, the crucifixion, born out of wedlock (later revised to be "born of a virgin"). These are likely more likely to be original and authentic.

The dataless assertions continue, so I will be reverting back to generally only responding to you when you provide data. So, when I don't respond, just check your lack of data. Also, it seems only fair to remind you that a conclusion based on data is not the data.

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
They simply made it up.

You'd think a proud people would promote from within.

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course there should have been lights before the plants. If that were the only problem with Genesis, you might have something with your "Let there be light" argument. e.g. The Earth did not exist before the Sun.

Did you determine that thru a more careful open-minded reading of Genesis?

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Except when it conflicts with your religion. Then it goes right out the window.

Confirming data will trump my present religion every time. That's because for its foundation my religion is committed to what is confirmed.