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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#110963 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with Franklin and Jefferson regarding churches and "Christianity" as they knew them.
I'm very interested in the proof that Matthew never met Jesus.
You have proof that he did??

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110964 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Stated like a head doctor who is truly in fear of the data he knows he will receive if he opens the door. If that's not so, you will open the door.

I have been welcoming of the data but non have been provide unto me.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#110965 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with Franklin and Jefferson regarding churches and "Christianity" as they knew them.
I'm very interested in the proof that Matthew never met Jesus.
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 (Hebraďdi 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...

KAB

Oxford, NC

#110966 Feb 23, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Weren't Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson actual people?
You can see them all on Season 13 Episode 8 of South Park.
So South Park must also be true.
KAB wrote:
I see you failed to discern the issue.
I guess I did.
Now could you please help me discern the issue by explaining why the mentioning of Sargon the Great proves the Bible true while the mentioning of Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson doesn't prove South Park true?
The mention of Sargon only proves that the Bible was correct about Sargon, and is one point on an ever growing list of Bible info confirmed correct. Kitten declared that the Bible has zero evidence to support it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110967 Feb 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You have proof that he did??
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#110968 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. They're documented in a demonstrated reliable source
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.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#110969 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
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.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110970 Feb 23, 2013
Okay, now I gotcha, KAB.
Sorry.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#110971 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110972 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've moved into the realm of openly stupid. The Bible contains references to Assyrian King Sargon. Compare them with archaeological finds, and you'll see how quickly the Bible moves out of the zero evidence column.
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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110973 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I too make mistakes. The difference may be that I work very hard to avoid them, and consequently very consistently succeed.
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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110974 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.
Of course it is demonstrated reliable! Anything that contradicts the Bible's claims can merely be dismissed with a "nuh uh" or "until science conclusively disproves X, X must be considered true." In other words, KAB doesn't apply normal logic to his Bible, because to do so would destroy his ability to believe everything it says.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110975 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The mention of Sargon only proves that the Bible was correct about Sargon, and is one point on an ever growing list of Bible info confirmed correct. Kitten declared that the Bible has zero evidence to support it.

So the bible has almost as much evidence to support it as the Simpsons do.

Great.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110976 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been welcoming of the data but non have been provide unto me.
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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110977 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for reinforcing the point that Pi=3 was not used to make the wash basin, and yet the basin was made. Actually, I doubt they even used Pi in any form to make the basin. I used to make perfect circles for playing marbles on the playground without knowing anything about Pi. If someone had asked me how big around my circle was, I can easily imagine taking the string I used to swing the arc, laying it loosely around the perimeter, and declaring it to be 3 times the diameter.
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.
KAB

Oxford, 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 (Hebraďdi 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

Oxford, 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

United States

#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.

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 19 min Kong_ 679
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 47 min polymath257 133,986
How would creationists explain... 6 hr Hidingfromyou 434
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web