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
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110653 Feb 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide chapter and verse for the 'cloud cover'
Also provide same for where "God made two great lights" was revised from the 4th day.
Cloud cover: Gen. 1:6,7

No revision on the great lights location. Still 4th day. Probably always will be. The significance is not in the time location of the activity. It's in the possible meaning of the word rendered "made".
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110654 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your funniest quote to date.
http://www.casagrandebaptistchurch.com/Refuta...
The link is nearly as much gibberish as JW brainwashing, but it does point out some good stuff.
Their raking the New World "translation" over the hot coals is pretty entertaining.
Thanks for the reference. Here is a quote from it,

"Most Christians will find that Jehovah's Witnesses travel in groups, but come to the door in two's: usually a seasoned door-to-door witness and a trainee."

Inasmuch as the last part of this statement is patently false, and betrays a non-objective disposition on the part of the author, he loses his opportunity to enlighten me. You probably would have been further ahead to select a specific objective morsel of data from the document. You are, for that matter, still welcome to do so. I just have no use/tolerance for someone who isn't careful/cautious with his handling of info. There's too much good info to sift thru as it is (Ecclesiastes 12:12).
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110655 Feb 20, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniel knew how to become a Christian,
even though Daniel lived in Old Testament times?
No, the passage from Daniel addresses an applicable general principle.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110656 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dataless assertion.
See if you can perform this analysis.

If it is asserted that all of a document is true, what is the minimum number of points in the document that would have to be proven false to prove the assertion incorrect?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110657 Feb 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I state that my religion includes only that which is confirmed?
CLUE: Hebrews 11:6
God's existence is the core of your religion. Your religion is founded upon that which is confirmed. At the very least, your religion must posit that God exists. If that's the foundation of your religion, then it surely must have been confirmed. Is it only the most important and impressive bits that haven't been confirmed?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110658 Feb 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
"The Bible, the so-called ‘Word of God’ is a book edited in the 17th. Century, from the 16th. Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th. Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century”
KJV commisioned by prince james. Thanks for the correction word.
Nevertheless il'd like a sourced source.(I suppose somewhere in the ones you allready gave) Pinpointed please so i can check-up.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110659 Feb 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still have a problem with the scope of a fields of study I see.
{snip of more crapola}
One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110660 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Cloud cover: Gen. 1:6,7
No revision on the great lights location. Still 4th day. Probably always will be. The significance is not in the time location of the activity. It's in the possible meaning of the word rendered "made".
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea...
Water is a different symbolic word for 'ether/sphere' the god-substance.'Gods' devides themselves.
Water is not water thus.
'Making' is not that relevant. But for who is.
The entire translation is not relevant. lol
It only leads to silly discussions.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110661 Feb 21, 2013
Strongs translate every use the same and used mainly arab to understand hebrew.
Especially since this verb is particular to hebrew and not further attested.
So he's out.(same goes for elef always meaning thousand)
Brown Driver Briggs is the better source.
http://biblesuite.com/bdb/6213.htm
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110662 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Shall we discuss Marksman’s Ten Commandments?
Love too!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
1.[always avoid] the origin of life.
I agree.
Also avoid basket weaving, bicycle mechanics, or any other irrelevant topic—unless you can tie it in.
I can tie it in. In order to have biological evolution, must a body experience chemical evolution? Also Bicycle mechanics and basket weaving is observable. The origin of life and human from non-human evolution are not observable, thus failing the scientific method.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
2...don't admit that evolution is indeed a part of the origin of life.
I agree.
Don’t admit that, because it’s not true.
It most certainly is true. It's called chemical evolution.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
3...always say your opponent doesn't grasp science, when they demand you adhere to the scientific method.
I’m at loss on this one.
When did a Creationist ever demand that an Evolutionist adhere to the scientific method?
Just abput every post I've made in 3 years!!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I’ve only seen it happen the other way around.
Not with me. I'm honest and admit matters of faith, unlike you guys.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
4...avoid attempts to explain extreme complexity unless your opponent is uneducated about the scientific method. Then befuddle them with fantasies.
We’re talking about Michael Behe’s arguments here, are we?
No we are not. Michael Behe's concept is irreducible complexity, and is a valid concept.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I admit, they get rather complicated.
But I’m not going to cut and paste just because my opponent does.
Then you lose!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
5....avoid the anthropic principle, if you are atheist.
I agree. Also, avoid the anthropic principle if your’e NOT an atheist.
Also, avoid basket weaving, bicycle mechanics, or another irrelevant topic—unless you can tie it in.
Again I can tie it in. THe anthropic Principle says that the big bang occured in the such a razor thin peramiter that it appears it was designed to support the life that was going to be placed within it. If you are an atheist, it is a stong argument that the universe was designed, and knew we were coming!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110663 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
6....avoid attempting to explain an evolutionary path to the two genders.
We faced this subject head on.
I asked what male boobies were if they weren’t a vestigial organ.
You merely handwaved that argument away.
It was a ridiculous argument. Just because you are a terrible biological designer, and are ignorant of the origin of human biology by definition says you are not the authority on what is vestigial and what isn't. Many organs in the past were proclaimed "vestigial" by much more educated and biological authorities than you, and were found to be completely wrong. Evolution of the 2 genders has never been observed, explained, and can not be replicated. Please explain how a male and female can evolve, at the same time, both with working plumbing that can be used to precreate, when this happened, the mutation that caused it, and where this occurred. Don't worry, I know you have no idea.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
7....never attempt to explain what changed or evolved that changed a nonhuman to a human.
I think Chimney1 explained that very well.
In case you don’t recall, he said that our ancestors had to adjust from the jungle to the savannah.
HAHAHAHAHA...and that answers what evolved that made non-humans evolve into humans? That is like asking what makes a car go so fast, and you reply, "I love butterflys"!!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
8....Never attempt to explain the Cambrian Explosion by citing the millions of years psuedoexplanation. It still doesn't explain these life forms showing up with no previous ancestors.
That argument was advanced before pre-Cambrian fossils were found.
They have been found now.
The Cambrian explosion argument would be stronger if amphibians, reptiles, and mammals were found in the Cambrian layer.
No, it would be stronger if you'd present the unpresentable fossils that give the Cambrian fossils their non-existent ancestors.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
9.. Never use the fossil record as evidence for human from non-human evolution. Fossils show that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. It does not show heritage.
That’s a clever weasel.
It is true.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I’ve never run across that one before.
I guess you better refute it then without using interpretation of other fossils.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
10...Never claim that all macroevolution is is more and more microevolution over time. Microevolution has been observed and tested. Macro...or human from non-human evolution has never been observed in the history of the planet.
We have mentioned cases in which a population evolved to the point that its members could no longer mate with members of their parent population.
That is ring species, and in every case mud skippers are still mud skippers, and gulls are still gulls. They have not evolved into something else and in no way supports your human from non-human evolution!!! See, I told you you shouldn't ever use these arguments!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110664 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are not answers to my question, do you have any actual answers? I said how, not who.
I showed you the how!!! The designer of all life breathed the breath of life into man and he became a living life. You don't have to like it, and you ignorantly thought I couldn't answer, but I just showed you how!!! Don't worry, you can't do it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110665 Feb 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm researching this as we speak. The writer of the article is Hershel Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine and founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society so there is an automatic bias to his writings.
Knowing the truth often makes one biased towards it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110666 Feb 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Thomas Robertson answered you pretty well on this subject. It's post #110673 in case you haven't seen it yet.
Been there, refuted it. NEXT!!
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget its been proven that humans mated with Neanderthals (long ago) and made fertile offspring and we (non-Africans) have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood now.
Neanderthals were human, so your claim is no big deal. No different that a oriental person mating with a Indian. They are still producing humans. That doesn't support human from non-human evolution. It is just irrelevant gibberish.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110667 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniel knew how to become a Christian,
even though Daniel lived in Old Testament times?
He had faith in the coming messiah, just as modern christians have faith in the messiah that has come.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110668 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you determine that thru a more careful open-minded reading of Genesis?
An open mind is a good thing, so long as your mind is not so open any old garbage can be tossed in. Your's is way too open, and now the garbage fills your mind not allowing reality in. I feel sorry for you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110669 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
So you read Ken Hamm's garbage and recite it, should have guessed.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110670 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you read Ken Hamm's garbage and recite it, should have guessed.
I have never read a word by Ken Ham. Now care to address the question you just dodged. Can you have biological human from non-human evolution without chemical evolution?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110671 Feb 21, 2013
I Google searched "evolution" and got:

evolution of dance
evolution of smooth
evolution of Batman
evolution of bathing suits
evolution of batteries
evolution of rivers
evolution of dance songs
evolution of computers

According to marksman, we will have to investigate all of these topics, because they all have the word "evolution" in the title.

No telling what you can come up with if you change definitions of a word in the middle of a syllogism:

Only some dogs have floppy ears.
My dog has floppy ears.
Therefore, my dog is some dog!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110672 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I have never read a word by Ken Ham. Now care to address the question you just dodged. Can you have biological human from non-human evolution without chemical evolution?
Atoms don't evolve because atoms don't reproduce on their own, they don't reproduce at all, they are altered in structure through other forces, forces that would destroy life if it was to come close enough to alter the atoms. So your red herring is stupid, it's pointless, and has nothing to do with biology ...

... and Ken Ham made up the "chemical evolution" garbage.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Igor Trip 154,610
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 17,905
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,082
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 7 hr kenedy njoroge 884
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