It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

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

There are 161476 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110918 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no confirming data for anything there, just a list of dataless assertions which by themselves are worthless. I realize that finding data takes work whereas spewing assertion does not, but rational people want to see confirming data from those lazy enough to try getting by with only the assertions.

There's no confirming data for anything there, just a list of dataless assertions which by themselves are worthless. I realize that finding data takes work whereas spewing assertion does not, but rational people want to see confirming data from those lazy enough to try getting by with only the assertions. So get off your lazy butt and provide data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110919 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, that's Pi to one significant digit!

Which is 100% tolerance in modern structures.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110920 Feb 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
You believe something that has zero supporting evidence as fact, that is a delusion, delusional people are insane.
You must be delusional. I don't believe as fact, things which have zero supporting evidence.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110921 Feb 23, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Not even close. You said that the site said that neanderthals were not human, but just like human from non-human evolution and the fossile evidence you claim exists, you interpret it that way. It NEVER SAID neanderthals where non-human and you were dishonest in your claim hoping I wouldn't read it. Let's continue....<quoted text>NO!!!<quoted text>No it doesn't, it says we are both human, the very fact that you are trying to avoid.<quoted text>I JUST READ THE SITE YOU POSTED!!!!<quoted text>I am not a YEC.<quoted text>You can't even keep up if I am a young earth creationist or not.<quoted text>You can say anything you want. I just proved you dishonest, and what stands is that your site never said that neanderthals were not human as you claimed.
You say:
"You can say anything you want. I just proved you dishonest, and what stands is that your site never said that neanderthals were not human as you claimed."

What are you, a child??

I merely paraphrased what the site said. An accurate paraphrase I might add. Simply because the site did not use the exact words doesn't mean I was wrong.

Is English a second language to you?

Have you never paraphrased some information before??

Grow up dude
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110922 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you did not understand. You are the ass, which I do NOT prefer.
I got the right answer. Your inability to see past your religious programming limits your use of logic.
I understood perfectly. Speaking of logic, everyone knows the expression "horses mouth" does not apply to your choice of info source. There's only one other end on that horse, and you chose it!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110923 Feb 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Except of course that Kings and Chronicles were set down 2 centuries apart. To make the numbers jibe, Kuf-vav-heh and Kuf-vav would have to be used within the same book - either Kings or Chronicles, respectively to denote diameter in measure of Kuf-vav and circumference as Kuf-vav-heh. Is that the case?
Actually Munk came with that solution.
Based on dropping the superpous heh in speach, or in writing silet heh added to v'kav in 1 kings 7:23, and stating 'line as is in II chron. 4:2.
Gen 1:9 would be an attestation ( translated as shall gather, but we can infer some dam/line)

kaf-vav-heh/kaf-vav would be the only string ratio that works.

Interesting read also as to why the bitul is a nullifier and the 12 th c. CE small-point theory:
https://docs.google.com/viewer...

The second one, taking line -v'kav as intended, would mean the straight lines of the cube holding the sea/yam.
http://mordochai.tripod.com/measures.html#top
Biblical measuring units and Solomon's "Sea".
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110924 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I will not provide the data. You need to learn to do your own homework and own thinking. It is the only path to freedom.
I notice you could not provide even one germ of data against my post.
Typical of you.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul was rejected by Jesus' followers. He was the first Christian heretic (who John(?) labels 'false prophet'. All followers who acknowledge Paul are, by definition, heretics.
There are many religions not well received by society. Muslims, Jews, ATHEISTS, SDAs, Christian Scientists, Mormans,.....
As to the JW cult you guys DO get a few things right:
- denial of the Trinity
- denial of deity of Christ
- denial of physical resurrection.
You do down hill fast from there, however.
Things you get wrong are legion:
- Mistranslations of many words including YHWH
- revisionist history (including JW history)
- false prophecies
- what happens after death (more the inconsistency than the dogma)
- 144,000.... enough said.
- Whole nonsense about immortal vs. everlasting life (yes, I have read the nonsense, it is guano crazy).
- New World Translation (again enough said).
many, many, many more.
They're your assertions to be confirmed, understandably, by you doing your homework to provide confirming data.

What's unreasonable about the following?:
"Here are my assertions, which must be taken as correct unless you prove them incorrect."

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110925 Feb 23, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, i know that one.
Let's see what a scientist and torah rabbi states on this issue:
quote:
The Torah is absolute and immutable, and there are many examples of how the Torah reflects a deeper scientific wisdom. Here's one:
The verse says: "[King Solomon] made a molten sea of 10 cubits from rim to rim, with a round circumference, five cubits in height, and a 30-cubit line of circumference." (1-Kings 7:23, 2-Chronicles 4:2)
The verse describes King Solomon's pool as a circular structure with a circumference of 30 cubits and a diameter of 10 cubits. Thus: 30 divided by 10 equals 3. This value is considered a very primitive approximation of Pi.
Historians have generally attributed the first close approximation of Pi to the Egyptians, in their construction of the Great Pyramid, as described by Abbe Moreux in his "La Science Mysterieuse des Pharaons" (Paris, 1923).
Now let's look at the writings of The Vilna Gaon (18th century Lithuania), who writes:
In each of the two Biblical verses describing King Solomon's pool, the word for "line" is written differently. What is the possible reason? If we take the gematria (numerical value) of the two spellings, we find something very significant.
The word "line" in 1-Kings 7:23 is spelled Kuf-Vav-Heh, which equals a numerical value of 111. The word "line" in 2-Chronicles 4:2 is spelled Kuf-Vav, a numerical value of 106.
If you calculate the ratio of these two values to four decimal places (1.0472), then multiply by 3 (the biblical value of Pi in its simple reading), the result is 3.1416 - the precise mathematic value of Pi, correct to four decimal places.
Many scientists acknowledge the deeper scientific truths of Torah. I recommend reading the writings of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of God, and The Hidden Face of God.
end quote.
As stated before,i sometimes let things slip, given the ardent attempts to educate.
Except of course that Kings and Chronicles were set down 2 centuries apart. To make the numbers jibe, Kuf-vav-heh and Kuf-vav would have to be used within the same book - either Kings or Chronicles, respectively to denote diameter in measure of Kuf-vav and circumference as Kuf-vav-heh. Is that the case?

Kong_
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta

"Pi" is a name given in the 1700s for the mathematical relationship of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter.

So no, the Bible doesn't say "Pi", but it DOES express the above relationship (circumference of a circle divided by its diameter), and getting the math incorrect -- or at best grossly inaccurate.

MAAT:
Actually Munk came with that solution.
Based on dropping the superflous heh in speech, or in writing silent heh added to v'kav in 1 kings 7:23, and stating 'line as is in II chron. 4:2.
Gen 1:9 would be an attestation ( translated as shall gather, but we can infer some dam/line)

kaf-vav-heh/kaf-vav would be the only string ratio that works.

Interesting read also as to why the bitul is a nullifier and the 12 th c. CE small-point theory:
https://docs.google.com/viewer ...

The second one, taking line -v'kav as intended, would mean the straight lines of the cube holding the sea/yam.
http://mordochai.tripod.com/measures.html#top
Biblical measuring units and Solomon's "Sea".
LowellGuy

United States

#110926 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be delusional. I don't believe as fact, things which have zero supporting evidence.
You don't believe God exists?
You don't accept as true that Noah's flood really occurred?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110927 Feb 23, 2013
Darn forgot chromiuMan.
It's thus not about occurring in one book, but features of the language. Or general guidelines.
Making a perfect circle requires no more than a stick and a piece of string.
But Kong has the point.

What i find more interesting is all the theories it can lead too.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110928 Feb 23, 2013
Il'd say KAB whatever works for you.
Given Mayim or waters.
LowellGuy

United States

#110929 Feb 23, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, i know that one.
Let's see what a scientist and torah rabbi states on this issue:
quote:
The Torah is absolute and immutable, and there are many examples of how the Torah reflects a deeper scientific wisdom. Here's one:
The verse says: "[King Solomon] made a molten sea of 10 cubits from rim to rim, with a round circumference, five cubits in height, and a 30-cubit line of circumference." (1-Kings 7:23, 2-Chronicles 4:2)
The verse describes King Solomon's pool as a circular structure with a circumference of 30 cubits and a diameter of 10 cubits. Thus: 30 divided by 10 equals 3. This value is considered a very primitive approximation of Pi.
Historians have generally attributed the first close approximation of Pi to the Egyptians, in their construction of the Great Pyramid, as described by Abbe Moreux in his "La Science Mysterieuse des Pharaons" (Paris, 1923).
Now let's look at the writings of The Vilna Gaon (18th century Lithuania), who writes:
In each of the two Biblical verses describing King Solomon's pool, the word for "line" is written differently. What is the possible reason? If we take the gematria (numerical value) of the two spellings, we find something very significant.
The word "line" in 1-Kings 7:23 is spelled Kuf-Vav-Heh, which equals a numerical value of 111. The word "line" in 2-Chronicles 4:2 is spelled Kuf-Vav, a numerical value of 106.
If you calculate the ratio of these two values to four decimal places (1.0472), then multiply by 3 (the biblical value of Pi in its simple reading), the result is 3.1416 - the precise mathematic value of Pi, correct to four decimal places.
Many scientists acknowledge the deeper scientific truths of Torah. I recommend reading the writings of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of God, and The Hidden Face of God.
end quote.
As stated before,i sometimes let things slip, given the ardent attempts to educate.
Numerology can "prove" anything. Just find the numbers you want, wherever they may be.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110930 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be delusional. I don't believe as fact, things which have zero supporting evidence.

So you reject God outright.

Pity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110931 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood perfectly. Speaking of logic, everyone knows the expression "horses mouth" does not apply to your choice of info source. There's only one other end on that horse, and you chose it!

Sorry Mr. horse, I cannot hear what your ass is saying from here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110932 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They're your assertions to be confirmed, understandably, by you doing your homework to provide confirming data.
What's unreasonable about the following?:
"Here are my assertions, which must be taken as correct unless you prove them incorrect."

That is your assertion. If you would like to try to prove them I will sit here and be amused.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I will not provide the data. You need to learn to do your own homework and own thinking. It is the only path to freedom.
I notice you could not provide even one germ of data against my post.
Typical of you.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul was rejected by Jesus' followers. He was the first Christian heretic (who John(?) labels 'false prophet'. All followers who acknowledge Paul are, by definition, heretics.
There are many religions not well received by society. Muslims, Jews, ATHEISTS, SDAs, Christian Scientists, Mormans,.....
As to the JW cult you guys DO get a few things right:
- denial of the Trinity
- denial of deity of Christ
- denial of physical resurrection.
You do down hill fast from there, however.
Things you get wrong are legion:
- Mistranslations of many words including YHWH
- revisionist history (including JW history)
- false prophecies
- what happens after death (more the inconsistency than the dogma)
- 144,000.... enough said.
- Whole nonsense about immortal vs. everlasting life (yes, I have read the nonsense, it is guano crazy).
- New World Translation (again enough said).
many, many, many more.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110933 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided you with links to thousands of errors.
BTW, 400 contributors to the bible would be far closer than 40. Actually they probably number in the thousands just for the NT.
I have considered every submission you have provided, and so far the first item on each list has always proven laughably easily demonstrably false (e.g., Pi=3) leaving no motivation or rationale for going any further down the list. If you can't sanity check pre-screen your submissions to make the residual worthy of consideration, I'm not going to do it for you.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110934 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no confirming data for anything there, just a list of dataless assertions which by themselves are worthless. I realize that finding data takes work whereas spewing assertion does not, but rational people want to see confirming data from those lazy enough to try getting by with only the assertions. So get off your lazy butt and provide data.
For which assertion do you want data first?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110935 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is 100% tolerance in modern structures.
The statement in question is not an instruction for forming a wash basin. It is a passing reference to the size of the finished basin. There isn't even a hint of using Pi=3 to form something. If there was, I would be all over it like KAB on the Quran 4:11,12.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110936 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be delusional. I don't believe as fact, things which have zero supporting evidence.
The bible and koran have zero supporting evidence.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110937 Feb 23, 2013
Marksman, show me where my math is wrong:

C = pi d
C = 300
d = 100
300 = 100 pi
Therefore, pi = 3

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Nohweh 30,607
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 3 hr Dogen 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 70,561
G-d versus Evolution? 10 hr Dogen 35
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Dogen 3,852
News Episode 2: The Birth of Climate Denial 11 hr Subduction Zone 7
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 19 hr Out of the Night 78
More from around the web