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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110642 Feb 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Per my last post - Methuselah lived on for 17 years after the Flood.
Awkward, since he wasn't on the Ark.

Actually, the math I have seen shows he died in the flood.

Still awkward.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#110643 Feb 20, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Here's you a list evolutionists should always avoid.
1...the origin of life.
2...don't admit that evolution is indeed a part of the origin of life.
3...always say your opponent doesn't grasp science, when they demand you adhere to the sciemtific method.
4...avoid attempts to explain extreme complexity unless your opponent is uneducated about the scientific method. Then befuddle them with fantasies.
5....aviod the athropic principle, if you are atheist.
6....avoid attempting to explain an evolutionary path to the two genders.
7....never attempt to explain what changed or evolved that changed a nonhuman to a human.
8....Never attempt to explain the Cabrian Explosion by citing the millions of years psuedoexplanation. It still doesn't explain these life forms showing up with no previous ancestors.
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 heratige.
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.
This is enuff, and more would just be bullying....
I think Thomas Robertson answered you pretty well on this subject. It's post #110673 in case you haven't seen it yet.

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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110644 Feb 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Per my last post - Methuselah lived on for 17 years after the Flood.
Awkward, since he wasn't on the Ark.
Until there is a conclusive scientific study that human beings can't survive a year-long stay at the bottom of a miles-deep global flood, you can't say that Methuselah didn't simply live through the flood that God used to kill everything that wasn't on Noah's boat, thereby failing to do exactly what God said he was doing. I mean, sure, you might think that God would know how to effectively kill off all of humanity on Earth save for those on a giant dinghy, but apparently KAB thinks that God is either incompetent or that a human being had gills. But, remember...KAB's religion is founded upon only that which has been confirmed.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110645 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
False dichotomy?
Um... well educated, experts in their field,....
Did you miss the quote? It specifically used one of the two choices I gave. Nothing false about that dichotomy! Who do you think I am, the Guy?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110646 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What an oddly out of context quote.
Please explain.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110647 Feb 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the quote? It specifically used one of the two choices I gave. Nothing false about that dichotomy! Who do you think I am, the Guy?

I now assume you are joking.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110648 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the math I have seen shows he died in the flood.
Still awkward.
Answers in Genesis disagrees...

Laffin.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110649 Feb 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Until there is a conclusive scientific study that human beings can't survive a year-long stay at the bottom of a miles-deep global flood, you can't say that Methuselah didn't simply live through the flood that God used to kill everything that wasn't on Noah's boat, thereby failing to do exactly what God said he was doing. I mean, sure, you might think that God would know how to effectively kill off all of humanity on Earth save for those on a giant dinghy, but apparently KAB thinks that God is either incompetent or that a human being had gills. But, remember...KAB's religion is founded upon only that which has been confirmed.
Entertaining, innit?

And still free!
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110650 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on if you mean OT or NT. The oldest manuscript of a nearly complete bible dates to the 4th century a.d..
The great thing about old fragments is that no two of them agree.
I mean both OT and NT. That's why I used the "about" qualifier. Regarding manuscript fragments, what do you mean by "agree", letter for letter identical or same info content?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110651 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You left off the unknown authorship of 2 Tim as well as the literal and historic context of the passage.
Also is the Rig Veda inspired by god?
The Koran?
The Gospel of Thomas?
Revelation?
Hebrews?
Job?
Ruth?
Ecclesiaticus?
Hopefully you will discern why I choose the particular examples in the above list.
It would have included that which the writer of the second letter to Timothy recognized as "scripture". This would not include the Rig Veda, Quran, Gospel of Thomas, or Ecclesiaticus, as none of these occur along with Timothy in the earliest known scripture canon, embodied in the Muratorian Fragment.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110652 Feb 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, like Noah's flood and God's existence?
Did I state that my religion includes only that which is confirmed?
CLUE: Hebrews 11:6
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

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min dirtclod 132,902
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,623
How would creationists explain... 5 hr Dogen 347
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,937
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 12 hr MikeF 546
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web