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

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

There are 168690 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

#111003 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.
30/10 cubits being an approximation only means that "The Word of God" uses an approximation in relating that account. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to pursue any of the other questions just present them, one per post please. That keeps things more focused and orderly.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111004 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.

but I have a picture of spiderman in NY.

http://www.google.com/url...

The bible, OTOH, refers to cities which did not exist, events out of chronological order (per archeology), blatant revisionist history and a multitude of errors.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111005 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible presents itself as an historical document, and has not been convicted of any errors. Not so with the Simpsons.

I was not aware that the bible was even on trial. What were the charges? I bet there was a plea bargain involved.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111006 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, there is more than one way to slice Pi. He who is blinded is he who only sees one.

There is only one way to view pi, in context. The bible goes to great lengths to state that the c = 3xd.

You can TRY to twist that, but it is still there in every translation you want to look at.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111007 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
30/10 cubits being an approximation only means that "The Word of God" uses an approximation in relating that account. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to pursue any of the other questions just present them, one per post please. That keeps things more focused and orderly.

well, maybe god only approximated a global flood and it was really just a light shower.

think BEFORE you type.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111008 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.
How accurate would God want his word to be since it's impossible to express Pi exactly with one number?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111009 Feb 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
There's no need for Bible proponents to prove the Bible demonstrably reliable. Your side continually adds to the Bible's reliability record every time you try to confirm an error yet always fail to do so.

The canonized books of the Bible have no confirmed errors or contradictions among them.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111010 Feb 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible story about Noah is true. Start there.
I have never stated that there is confirming physical data for the account about Noah.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111011 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.
Spiderman comic books say Barack Obama exists and has been elected president. Records demonstrate that Barack Obama DOES exist, and HAS been elected president. NOW does Spiderman exist?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111012 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no need for Bible proponents to prove the Bible demonstrably reliable. Your side continually adds to the Bible's reliability record every time you try to confirm an error yet always fail to do so.
The canonized books of the Bible have no confirmed errors or contradictions among them.
By that logic, failing to disprove the existence of sasquatches proves that sasquatches exist.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111013 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How accurate would God want his word to be since it's impossible to express Pi exactly with one number?
Indisputably. Why should your God want anything less than perfection from himself?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111014 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and this is not research that is original to Ehrman (though he contributed some of the innumerable nails in literalism's coffin).
Ehrman does a great job of summarizing the research that is done in this area in his many books.
The denialist will continue to cry and stomp their feet.
They seem to be crying and stomping their feet a lot in the last few years, don't they??

I predict that there will be much more crying and stomping of the feet in the future as their Bible is shredded by more and more solid proof against it.

The Bible will fall fairly soon as a 'inerrant' source I think. Soooo much evidence against it now.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111015 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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??
I think we should review Dr. Ehrman's confirming data to understand why he has drawn the conclusion he has.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111016 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never stated that there is confirming physical data for the account about Noah.
No, you have declared it to be true. If a natural phenomenon is to be accepted as true, there must be empirical evidence of some sort. "This person says so" isn't empirical evidence. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, and that's being outrageously generous.

Now, do you say that Noah's flood story is true? Do you say that the claim of a natural phenomenon is true? If so, you do so without empirical evidence. This is irrational and unscientific. It is, in fact, anti-scientific to say "accept claims despite lack of evidence and despite contradictory evidence." Normal critical thinking skills would keep you from doing this. It's not our fault that you cannot, or will not, exercise normal critical thinking skills.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111017 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we should review Dr. Ehrman's confirming data to understand why he has drawn the conclusion he has.
Why don't we review the confirming data to understand why you have drawn the conclusion you have regarding Noah's flood instead?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111018 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If you were a reasonable guy you would include the question, Do we have any demonstrated reliable documentation about God. In considering the Bible for that body of documentation you would note Job 26:7, and that apart from the Bible there is no evidence man even grasped the concept at the time it was written. You would also realize that there is no non-God believable explanation for this. You would further realize/acknowledge that it only takes one piece of confirming data to make a case.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111019 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we should review Dr. Ehrman's confirming data to understand why he has drawn the conclusion he has.
Sure, just go to your library and check out 'Jesus interrupted' and 'Misquoting Jesus' Easy reading and he lists sources. You know come to think of it, I think there is some mention of this in the 'Catholic Encyclopedia...I'll have to hunt that down.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111020 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How accurate would God want his word to be since it's impossible to express Pi exactly with one number?

Less than 3.14 is not acceptable for building anything.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111021 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no need for Bible proponents to prove the Bible demonstrably reliable. Your side continually adds to the Bible's reliability record every time you try to confirm an error yet always fail to do so.
The canonized books of the Bible have no confirmed errors or contradictions among them.

Pi =/= 3

Done. Back in your court.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111022 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we should review Dr. Ehrman's confirming data to understand why he has drawn the conclusion he has.

Ehrman works with the oldest texts available.

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
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 min 15th Dalai Lama 13,763
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 8 min 15th Dalai Lama 265
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 56 min Wisdom of Ages 94,156
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 1 hr Davidjayjordan 2
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 1 hr Davidjayjordan 17
Evolutionist theory helps create man made diseases 1 hr Davidjayjordan 16
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 2 hr Davidjayjordan 25