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

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

There are 163781 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

#111023 Feb 24, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Tho you most often scramble things into virtual incomprehensibility, I give you very high marks for at least doing research. I, therefore, thought you would appreciate knowing that the oldest fragment (P52, John Rylands Library) of the Book of John dates to the first half of the second century CE. This is significant evidence for John being much more commensurate with the other Gospels than centuries apart. Perhaps you meant decades?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111024 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.
What's the basis for this assertion?

Mind Eusebius decided on the canonisation.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111025 Feb 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Boulders ejected FROM the crater are not exactly lake sediment IN the crater are they dunce?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111026 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tho you most often scramble things into virtual incomprehensibility, I give you very high marks for at least doing research. I, therefore, thought you would appreciate knowing that the oldest fragment (P52, John Rylands Library) of the Book of John dates to the first half of the second century CE. This is significant evidence for John being much more commensurate with the other Gospels than centuries apart. Perhaps you meant decades?
That scrap has been properly dated and such a tiny scrap, presumably John, shows no actual date anywhere near even the first century.

You must learn to distinguish between wishfull thinkig and it's attributions of possible time of coming up with the idea and 1) the carbon dating of the actual scrap and 2) the time of writing words on that scrap.
Dating the ink is usually the next step.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111027 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The trouble is the Old Testament where we learn a lot about this supposed God is rife with errors (in my humble opinion) I know you don't accept that, but....Oh well.

The stories are obviously wrong when we compare it to today's understanding of the world...there is no science backing up any of it, God is nowhere to be found. Our world is perfectly described and operated by nature.

The only room for a God, in my estimation, is the beginning of the universe 14 billion+- years ago. Surely a GOD would not be involved in the day to day affairs of goat herders. And just why would a GOD pick some desert dwelling goat herders to receive his attentions, and not some of the MILLIONS of other people inhabiting the earth 6,000 years ago. To read the Bible stories you would think that THEY thought they were the only ones inhabiting the planet.

No, the whole story just smacks of something men thought up to pass the time of day, and gullible people down through time fell for it.

If there is no proof to be found for this God of yours (and there isn't), I think the appropriate response is to just go about your business and ignore all things having to do with religion.

You write:
"...it only takes one piece of confirming data to make a case."

The obverse is also true. It only takes one bit of evidence proving the Bible wrong to destroy it...and we DO have it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111028 Feb 24, 2013
MAAT wrote:
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 have a truly dizzying intellect.

The material you provided relates to volcanic craters, and has nothing to do with the Barringer Meteor Crater in Northern Arizona.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111029 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tho you most often scramble things into virtual incomprehensibility, I give you very high marks for at least doing research. I, therefore, thought you would appreciate knowing that the oldest fragment (P52, John Rylands Library) of the Book of John dates to the first half of the second century CE. This is significant evidence for John being much more commensurate with the other Gospels than centuries apart. Perhaps you meant decades?
I believe John is considered to be the last gospel written...would that be true or false??

Also I have read in several different places that his gospel was written around 95-105 AD.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111030 Feb 24, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is that what you think? "A" one and only single tablet with the word 'sargon' on it has been found, and the Bible just throws in the word 'sargon' devoid of any context? Since you have proven you generally like to do research, please do this one before sticking your foot in any further.

Also, whatever Kit's conclusion, her reasoning does not parallel mine, although she presented it as if it does.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111031 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I notice you didn't explain how the material provided confirms Matthew never met Jesus.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111032 Feb 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's true I've been unable to stretch my critical thinking skills to the possibility that Earth's shape may be cubic. If I ever succeed I may have a basis for further reasoning with you.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111033 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you didn't explain how the material provided confirms Matthew never met Jesus.
Again from Wikipedia:

Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. The disciple Matthew was probably honored within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other.

The author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called "Q", and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called "M", some of which may have originated with Matthew himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111034 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are referencing Ehrman to make the specific point that Matthew never met Jesus. Do your homework. From all that material find and provide the specific portions which you think make that point.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111035 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Less than 3.14 is not acceptable for building anything.
So what's the answer, given that nothing was being built using the cited reference?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111036 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.
Yes, they are the exact same logic. So by your own logic, Spiderman exists.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111037 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referencing Ehrman to make the specific point that Matthew never met Jesus. Do your homework. From all that material find and provide the specific portions which you think make that point.
Sorry guy, I returned the books to the library long ago. You're library is bound to have them...they were popular books

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111038 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a truly dizzying intellect.
The material you provided relates to volcanic craters, and has nothing to do with the Barringer Meteor Crater in Northern Arizona.
LAKES is the buzzword.
Any form or shape that can be filled by sediments particularly since we are talking LACRUSTIANS.

Ejection material you also dismissed. As if a meteorhit wouldhave no ejction marerial and would leave no lacrusteans behind!

Sorry but direct your comments to the air of a wall next time...it's too daft.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111039 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Again from Wikipedia:
Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. The disciple Matthew was probably honored within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other.
The author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called "Q", and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called "M", some of which may have originated with Matthew himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe...
Since f.i. starts with KATA MARKON it gave me the idea that it cod conincide with Marcions ideas. Just as John reads like all the assorted discussions of the churchfathers.(In judaism thread we compared completely opposite statements.) And it reads like it is debating against the content of Thomas gospel.
So Meatthew and Luke probably also have counterpart in the real heretic gnostic world.

Apropos P52=RP457
First a look at the greek translation of torah:
Oshea, found at Joshua 13.8&16, is spelled AYSH, whilst the Jehoshua
found at Joshua 13.16 is spelled IHSOYN: note, this last is a case in declension - the nominative form would still be IHSOYS.

Note that the names can not be read in P52!
But in the form it is presented on wiki we see IHSOY (nominative english he) and IHSOYN (dative english him)

The proper greek for saviour would be SATER.(in one koine greek example)
http://groups.yahoo.com/AncientBibleHistory/m...
TR nobody grabbing someone elses throat here.;p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_...

In the meantime looked at some old books with commentaries.
IH SOYS usually stood for 'The' Zeus.
IH with added eta would signify 'of Zeus'or 'Zeus's'

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111040 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Boulders ejected FROM the crater are not exactly lake sediment IN the crater are they dunce?
They're still 50,000 years old.
What of your creation myth now?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111041 Feb 24, 2013
318-319 ce
Deir Ali inscription (Damascus area)
Marcio community enyojing freedom of worship.
ounagogè Marchionoiotoun choem (es) lebaabun tou
ch(ourio)u tu s(ute)rus 'Ie(sou) chreotou

The problem finding the nametitle 'jesus', in whatever language of yore is compounded by the sourses having only halve mentions or like here we are believed that IE should be followed by something.
Lacking the original depiction one just does not know. So therefore i simply state that sofar i haven't got a clue as to the first place to find a mention of the nametitle jesus.

March (Mark) and ionoiotoun (John), could have become two gospel names.
And church history is unreliable. Just a bit to convenient often and not supported by outside sources.
Self-referencing mainly.
With convenient i mean that we would f.i. know that a city and it's inhabitants were destroyed by an earthquake or the plague. Well just at that time the churchfather had set out on a trip to Rome. Various of such examples can be found, which are used to make them look like god's providence was on their site, and thus whatever they claim, burn, destroy is legitimate.

In Armenia in the 5th century Marcionites were still numerous.
Sofar the prosecution.
Any slaves (crest-usuefull (person)crestus/crestoi) however had a lousy time.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111042 Feb 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe John is considered to be the last gospel written...would that be true or false??
Also I have read in several different places that his gospel was written around 95-105 AD.
I've worked through reams of material and learned that most early finds should actually at least be placed in the early 3rd century.
Unless they are gnostic texts or clearly judaic, or if they are from Syria, but that would be like Marcionism just another branch.
For the gospels, apart for attributing the few letters to john, and presuming it was about jesus and not about sotorial activity of the pharasaic court, we would find no proof.
It's rather grasping at straws it suddenly gnostic material has to stand in as proof the validity of christianity.

The earliest versions of the gospels do not look one bit like the distilled and redacted version we have now.
Mind 70,000 differences.

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) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 80,001
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) 17 hr Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sat ChromiuMan 222,780
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web