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

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

There are 162034 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#110978 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Not proof of course, but there is this from Wikipedia:
“The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (about 100–140 AD), who, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekt&#333;i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (h&#275;rm&#275;neusen —or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialekt&#333;i Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe...
Thanks for the background info demonstrating why you should not have stated that Matthew never met Jesus. It does a disservice to the readers. Don't you realize the power of words on a page? Many will accept what you write as true and, worse yet, propagate it as such, none of which serves the interest of truth.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110979 Feb 24, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
You are over-thinking this.
Gematria, numerology, nuances? Please. Those do not explain how the tub purportedly contained 13 times the amount of water it was actually capable of.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110980 Feb 24, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
The Bible is NOT a "demonstrated reliable source".
The Bible is a bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE that only people who are truly ignorant and deluded think is "literally and inerrantly" true.
How deluded are these people? They actually think that a COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK of any research and empirical evidence in support of the FAIRY TALES in the Bible is actually "evidence" that they must be true.
Having restated your assertion ... AGAIN, all you have to do is prove it correct. Until then it's as worthless as ever.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110981 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Having restated your assertion ... AGAIN, all you have to do is prove it correct. Until then it's as worthless as ever.
And that is a worthless data-less assertion, as neither you nor anyone else has EVER demonstrated that the Bible is a "demonstrably reliable source."

Tell me, KAB - what makes the canonized books of the Bible more reliable than the Apocrypha, the Gnostic Gospels, the Vedas and Smruti or the Pyramid Texts?
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#110982 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Identify an assertion of mine for which I have not provided confirming data. If it happens that I have already provided data, I will gladly provide it again.
The Bible story about Noah is true. Start there.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110983 Feb 24, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Skeptic - "There is NO research or evidence for Noah, his ark of the Noachian flood".
"creotard" - "Prove that they didn't exist."
Skeptic - "The fact that there is NO research or empirical evidence that they didn't exixt is evidence that they didn't exist."
"creotard" - "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Skeptic - "There is a COMPLETE AND UTTER ABSENCE of evidence. That should tell you that they weren't real."
"creotard" - "Prove it. Show me that there isn't a single shred of research or empirical evidence that Noah, his ark and the Noachian ark were real."
Skeptic - "There's nothing to show you. That's the point. I can't show you "nothing". There is NOTHING."
"creotard" - "Aha, so you admit that you have nothing that can prove that Noah, his ark and the Noachian flood didn't happen."
----------
"creationism". Absolute, incomprehensible idiocy of Biblical proportions.
Why don't you just simply state it like it is, that there is no available physical data confirming Noah, his ark, or his flood?

If you want to overstate the case, declaring that they did not exist/happen, then you do put yourself on the hook to prove that.

It's also perfectly valid for you to state that you do not think these things are true, putting the onus on the other side to prove they did if they so desire.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110984 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Humanity has been searching diligently for any indication that god exists and so far we have not found any evidence at all that supports this theory. None. Nada. Zip. We have never observed a single molecule of matter, an exchange of a microjoule of energy, or a single step in the evolution of life on our planet that breaks the laws of physics.
Without any proof at all that something exists, or at least a reasonable hypothesis as to how it could exist, we HAVE to take the stance that it doesn't. Otherwise we will also believe in every ghost and goblin and fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any random crazy idea that people come up with. Thinking that something exists when it clearly doesn't is not belief, it's just an abuse of an overactive imagination which distracts from belief in the truth. David Workman http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article855.html
Why do you think we would be compelled to believe assertions coming from sources which are not demonstrated to be reliable?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110985 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the background info demonstrating why you should not have stated that Matthew never met Jesus. It does a disservice to the readers. Don't you realize the power of words on a page? Many will accept what you write as true and, worse yet, propagate it as such, none of which serves the interest of truth.
I have at least two credentialed religious scholars that agrees with me...I know there are more, but since its Sunday and I'm relaxing, I'm not going to research it right now.

Dr. Ehrman says that all 4 of the writers of the gospels were anonymous and never knew Jesus. Since his field is New Testament research and he graduated from Princeton Theological School and was a working minister for years and he has been doing his present job as professor of religion at Chapel Hill for many many years, I think I will believe him. I also think I will spread the word about the gospel writers. Hows that for the power of words??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110986 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we would be compelled to believe assertions coming from sources which are not demonstrated to be reliable?
You write:
“Why do you think we would be compelled to believe assertions coming from sources which are not demonstrated to be reliable?”

Well let’s explore this rejection.

HAVE we found ANY proof that God exists??

HAVE we ever observed a SINGLE molecule exchange a microjoule of energy or a single step in the evolution of our planet that breaks the laws of physics??

DO we have a reasonable hypothesis as to how he could exist…magic not allowed??

I’m a reasonable guy; all I ask for is proof. I personally have been unable to find one iota of valid evidence.

You have to admit the whole story behind Christianity is silly. And you have to admit that science is making serious inroads into the old myths….even thought you don’t believe it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110987 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Not proof of course, but there is this from Wikipedia:
“The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (about 100–140 AD), who, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekt&#333;i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (h&#275;rm&#275;neusen —or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialekt&#333;i Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe...
The first version of Matthew would be codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Both showing evidence of Alexandrian greek.
So most likely, in retrospect mathew would show borrowed jewish imagery or let's say some gratuite borrowing from the tanakh.
So as to imply he was a jewish hearsay witness.
Luke a roman-greek gent to check up on things, a corrector.
Marcus a roman soldier.
John i do not consider relevant since it comes centuries later.
And the above sources are allready from the 4th century.
Furthermore the first copy of the tanakh was also written in the same koine(common) Alexandrian greek that points to at least post 250 CE, and most probably at the same time as the commission was sent out by Eusebius to produce 50 copies of bibles.

I must say that it is not easy at all finding sources, and at that unbiassed.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110988 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How significant would you consider it if the lacustrine sediments from Meteor Crater in Arizona dated to around 4500 years ago?
Not much.

"...four dolomite boulders ejected
from the crater by the impact yield a mean age of 49.7 + 0.85 ka, which is in excellent agreement with
an average age of 49 + 3 ka obtained from thermoluminescence studies on shock-metamorphosed dolomite
and quartz. These ages are supported by undetectably low 14C in the oldest rock varnish sample."

- FRED M. PHILLIPS,’ MAREK G. ZREDA,’ STEWART S. SMITH,’ DAVID ELMORE,“*
PETER W. KUBIK,“+ RONALD I. DORN,~ and DAVID J. RODD~
‘Geoscience Department, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 8780 1, USA
2Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
‘Geography Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
%.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ 8600 1, USA.

That's 50,000 years. You're off by a factor of more than 10, just from the ejecta alone.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110989 Feb 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Spiderman lives in New York, since New York is a real place then so is Spiderman, based on your logic. So you cannot deny that Spiderman exists.
Your words, not mine, and characteristically lacking in logical parallel.

My example: Bible states Sargon existed. Archaeology proves Sargon existed.
Your example: A story states Spiderman lives in New York. New York exists, so Spiderman exists.

You, of course, don't see the difference in reasoning paths here, but most everyone else will readily and clearly discern the non-parallel.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110990 Feb 24, 2013
Feeder stream attributing sediments follow the shape of the original crater mound.

ABSTRACT
Maar craters of the Mio-Pliocene Hopi Buttes volcanic field of Arizona formed within a broad playa system, and accumulated a variety of lacustrine sedimentary deposits. Many craters initially held isolated, groundwater-fed lakes. Ephemeral streams crossing the playa entered some of the lake-filled craters, and built coarse grained Gilbert-type deltas and subaqueous fans along the margins of these craters. The small, coarse grained fans and deltas have many features in common with much larger coarse grained deltaic and fan deltaic deposits. However, the local production of coarse grained volcanic sediment, low gradients in the local stream catchment, steep subaqueous relief and the small size of the receiving ‘basins’resulted in a unique combination of features. Cone-shaped subaqueous fans initially formed at the mouths of incised feeder streams. The fans are small accumulations of steeply dipping gravelly tephra that consist almost entirely of overlapping lobes constructed by density-modified grain flows. Gravelly Gilbert-type tephra deltas formed in brimfull craters fed by a freely migrating feeder stream. They are concave lakeward, mimicking the underlying crater wall topography. Complex deltaic geometries are defined by topset strata that steeply onlap tall foreset beds. They suggest that feeding stream floods caused rapid and comparatively large variations in lake level within the small crater lakes. Bed-specific carbonate alteration is common, and probably resulted from both influx of detrital carbonate across the playa and alteration of tephra beds by carbonate-saturated lakewaters during between flood periods of high net evaporation.
Get PDF (1608K)More content like thisFind more content: like this articleFind more content written by:JAMES D. L. WHITE

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110991 Feb 24, 2013
And given that it speaks about evidenced small stream attribution to lacrustian sedimentation AND of lake-level variation and not total overflow, we conclude NO FLOOD.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110992 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words, not mine, and characteristically lacking in logical parallel.
My example: Bible states Sargon existed. Archaeology proves Sargon existed.
Your example: A story states Spiderman lives in New York. New York exists, so Spiderman exists.
You, of course, don't see the difference in reasoning paths here, but most everyone else will readily and clearly discern the non-parallel.
They find a place, and a tablet which spells 'sargon' depending on the linguist. Which might as well be a military title given to many or point to 'destructor'.
And the bible could also have meant it as such.
A sargon or in analog reasoning as kit does, a spiderman has therefore not been conclusively affirmed.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110993 Feb 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hubris being your main error. And, of course, poor critical thinking skills and terrible standards of evidence.
Main example: "the reputation of the source of a claim is sufficient justification to consider a claim true without corroborating evidence, turning the claim into evidence of the claim's veracity." Complete horseshit. But, because you require this to be true to justify your belief in things for which there is no supporting evidence and there is contradictory evidence, you uphold it anyway.
My position has never been that a claim is evidence of the claim's veracity. It is not surprising tho that one who reasons that there's still a chance Earth's shape may be cubic would come to such a conclusion.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110994 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So the bible has almost as much evidence to support it as the Simpsons do.
Great.
The Bible presents itself as an historical document, and has not been convicted of any errors. Not so with the Simpsons.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110995 Feb 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you completely missed the point. AGAIN. You contend that the Bible represents the word of God - the same god that created arithmetic would want accuracy in his book, wouldn't he?
Actually, I proposed this Pi=3 just to illuminate your own illogical shortfalls, since I knew you have no response to the many outlandish shortfalls of Genesis that you not only ignore, but try any and every means of deflection and distraction to avoid. I'm sure we'll get back to them.(Maybe we can look into who Cain married? Who were the strangers Cain was marked for protection from? It was God and Cain's secret - how would the strangers know he was a murderer? Who did Cain build a city with?)
I can accept that 30/10 cubits is an approximation, but that would mean that "The Word Of God" (trumpet fanfare) is also an approximation, wouldn't it? The answer to Pi seems elementary and straightforward if it was 10 cubits OD and 30 cubits inside circumference. Why didn't you think of that?(I suggested it months ago.) The reason? Blinded by faith, you are lousy at analysis, deduction and debate.
Indeed, there is more than one way to slice Pi. He who is blinded is he who only sees one.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110996 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Identify an assertion of mine for which I have not provided confirming data. If it happens that I have already provided data, I will gladly provide it again.

Start with the above assertion.

You provide data less frequently than blue moons.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110997 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the background info demonstrating why you should not have stated that Matthew never met Jesus. It does a disservice to the readers. Don't you realize the power of words on a page? Many will accept what you write as true and, worse yet, propagate it as such, none of which serves the interest of truth.

Are you being dishonest or did you not read carefully.


thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Not proof of course, but there is this from Wikipedia:
“The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (about 100–140 AD), who, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekt&#333;i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (h&#275;rm&#275;neusen —or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialekt&#333;i Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe ...



I suspect a little of both

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 74,946
News In Turkey, no teaching of evolution, but bannin... 17 min Science 39
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 24 min Nemesis 156
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 40 min THE LONE WORKER 245
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,048
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 1 hr Science 138
creationism, for good reason fears answers 13 hr Science 12
More from around the web