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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,444)

Showing posts 108,861 - 108,880 of127,534
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110900
Feb 23, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen Willard posting any wild and unsubstantiated pseudoscience or outlandish theological "truths" in this forum. Until he does, JW's and evangelicals will have to stand in for the Latter Day Saints. Hope you don't mind. Hey, if you're feeling a little outnumbered, maybe give a shout out to Paul Ryan to bring in the Roman Catholic viewpoint - that's always entertaining, too.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. I hope the good doctor takes note of your post.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110901
Feb 23, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Mind your 9th commandment, Marky Boy.
Circumference divided by diameter = pi.
(Pi = 3.141592...)
1 Kings 7:23
30 cubits divided by 10 cubits = 3
Hey, that's Pi to one significant digit!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110902
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?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110903
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Show me where it says Pi is 3. It is giving the measurements of a structure, and says nothing about pi. To say that pi is in the bible is a lie, and you told it. Just like the fossil record, you make up your fantasies and then believe them yourself. Like I said, the bible never mentions pi, and you continue to prove me right.
"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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110904
Feb 23, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That perception is a risk one takes when being unwaveringly insistent upon sticking with data rather than bowing to well-meaning assertions.
Nope.

You believe something that has zero supporting evidence as fact, that is a delusion, delusional people are insane.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110905
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Pi is not mentioned one single time in the bible. That is a lie.

This is false, the definition of pi is given and the value is shown to be 3.0.

Trinity is not mentioned one single time in the bible, however. Neither is "the fall".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110906
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't. I tell the truth, and you don't like it, so you insult it. In the words of Harry TRuman, "I don't give you hell, I give you the truth and you think it's hell!"

Actually, it is stupid.

If Truman had been describing invisible purple ping-pong balls before he said this, then his quote would be as valued as your saying it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110907
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, you're not that smart.<quoted text>I don't represent him either. He speaks for himself through the bible. You ought to read it.

The authors of the bible speak for him.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110908
Feb 23, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Mind your 9th commandment, Marky Boy.
Circumference divided by diameter = pi.
(Pi = 3.141592...)
1 Kings 7:23
30 cubits divided by 10 cubits = 3

It is clear as day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110909
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.

Neanderthals were not modern humans.

Where do you want to draw the line between human and non-human. Evolution says that there is a continuum so there is no line. In creationism there should be a line since we were separately created.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110910
Feb 23, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I still wonder what version of the translations you use i.o.w. what bible.
I left the hebrew i for i once got the silly complaint that no hebrew source was present. Even though you will only see numbers.
In case the interlineair could no be accessed from this forum:
u·iamr
and·he-is-saying
&#1492;&#1460;&#14 97;
&#1488;&#1457;
aleim
Elohim
&#1497;&#1456;&#14 92;&#1460;&#1497;
iei
he-shall-become
&#1512;&#1464;&#15 11;&#1460;&#1497;& #1506;&#1463;
rqio
atmosphere
 &#1514; &#1456;
b·thuk
in·midst-of
&#1497;&#1460;" &#1492;&#1463; &#1464;
e·mim
the·waters
&#1493;&#1460;&#14 97;&#1492;&#1460;& #1497;
u·iei
and·he-shall-become
(The following is the translations as you will find in most christian bibles.)
. And God said, Let there
be a firmament in the midst
of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the
waters.
6
&#1497;&#1500; & &#1502;&#1463;&#14 89;&#1456; &#1460;
mbdil
cseparating
' &#1497; &#1461;
bin
between
&#1502;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;
mim
waters
&#1500;&#1464;&#15 02;&#1464;&#1497;& #1460;
l·mim
to·waters
:
:
1:7 * &#1506;&#1463;# &#1493;&#1463; &#1463;
u·iosh
and·he-is-makingdo
&#1492;&#1460;&#14 97;
&#1488;&#1457;
aleim
Elohim
&#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;
ath
ğ
&#1470;
-
&#1492;&#1464;&#15 12;&#1464;&#1511;& #1460;&#1497;&#1506; &#1463;
e·rqio
the·atmosphere
&#1500;& &#1489;&#1456; &#1461; # &#1493;&#1463; &#1463;
u·ibdl
and·he-is-cseparating
' &#1497; &#1461;
bin
between
&#1497;&#1460;" &#1492;&#1463; &#1463;
e·mim
the·waters
&#1512; &#1488;&#1458; &#1462;
ashr
which
(The following is the translation as you will find in most christian bibles.)
And God made the
firmament, and divided the
waters which [were] under
the firmament from the
waters which [were] above
the firmament: and it was
so.
7
&#1495;&#1463;&#15 14; , &#1502;&#1460; &#1463;
m·thchth
from·under
&#1500;&#1464;&#15 12;&#1464;&#1511;& #1460;&#1497;&#1506; &#1463;
l·rqio
to·the·atmosphere
' &#1489;&#1461;&#14 97; 
u·bin
and·between
&#1497;&#1460;" &#1492;&#1463; &#1463;
e·mim
the·waters
&#1512; &#1488;&#1458; &#1462;
ashr
which
&#1502;&#1461;&#15 06;&#1463;&#1500;
m·ol
from·on
&#1500;&#1464;&#15 12;&#1464;&#1511;& #1460;&#1497;&#1506; &#1463;
l·rqio
to·the·atmosphere
&#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1456;&#1492;& #1460;&#1497;
u·iei
and·he-is-becoming
&#1470;
-
' &#1499;&#1461;
kn
so
:
:
&#1511;&#1456;&#15 12;&#1464;&#1488; 1:8 # &#1493;&#1463; &#1460;
u·iqra
and·he-is-calling
&#1492;&#1460;&#14 97;
&#1488;&#1457;
aleim
Elohim
&#1500;&#1464;&#15 12;&#1464;&#1511;& #1460;&#1497;&#1506; &#1463;
I love it when the program dictates the computer to end like in hebrew and the end of the word, so your beginning.
But DOGEN IS RIGHT, no cloudcover.
And it's obvious spheres of godly infuence are meant.
This may give us a reasonable starting point for consideration of the "waters" thesis.

Do you accept the following word-for-word interlinear rendering of the Genesis 1:6-8 Hebrew into English as valid? It is taken directly from your interlinear source.

1:6
and·he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become atmosphere in·midst-of the·waters and·he-shall-become separating between waters to·waters

1:7
and·he-is-making Elohim the·atmosphere and·he-is-separating between the·waters which from·under to·atmosphere and·between the·waters which from·on to·atmosphere and·he-is-becoming so

1:8
and·he-is-calling Elohim to·atmosphere heavens and·he-is-becoming evening and·he-is-becoming morning day second

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110911
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Show me where it says Pi is 3. It is giving the measurements of a structure, and says nothing about pi. To say that pi is in the bible is a lie, and you told it. Just like the fossil record, you make up your fantasies and then believe them yourself. Like I said, the bible never mentions pi, and you continue to prove me right.

The bible never mentions:
Rapture
Trinity
Fall

It does, however, define pi without using that term.

so Pi is more in the bible than trinity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110912
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You have no idea of the effort I put forth in anything. You guys continue to prove me correct this morning. You say that the fossil record supports human from non-human evolution, when the truth is it can't. All it can do is show that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. THe rest is interpretation and this morning you guys are displaying how inept you are at interpretation. You "interpret" my level of effort, but I'm not like you, effort is my nic name!!

You just keep putting forth unsupported assertions. The fossil record proves human evolution. That is a fact.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.


What is a nic name?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110913
Feb 23, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That doesn't even make sense.

Actually it was funny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110914
Feb 23, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assessment of objective got you the wrong answer. Perhaps you should rethink which end of the horse you prefer.

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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110915
Feb 23, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That perception is a risk one takes when being unwaveringly insistent upon sticking with data rather than bowing to well-meaning assertions.

No, it is the risk one takes when one bows to conformity to a religious cult. The first thing they take is your ability to think.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110916
Feb 23, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll respond to any point for which you provide data. For example, as an indication of the degree of present general disdain for the Mormon religion, you could have cited the fact that the Republican Presidential nominee was a Mormon.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110917
Feb 23, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A rational person wouldn't expect a book written over about 1500 years by about 40 contributors to be error free. That would be like a rational person accepting an assertion as true without having confirming data. That's also why it would be quite significant if no one could provide confirming data proving the book to be in error anywhere.

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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Which is 100% tolerance in modern structures.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 108,861 - 108,880 of127,534
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

19 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 40 min DanFromSmithville 106,338
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Dogen 168,757
Another Anti-Science Bill 3 hr The Dude 428
Scientists stunned by the public's doubt of Darwin 4 hr MikeF 4
Why isn't abiogenesis part of MODERN evolutiona... 5 hr The Dude 43
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,502
Science News (Sep '13) Wed _Susan_ 2,688
•••
•••
•••
•••