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 5,449)

Showing posts 108,961 - 108,980 of132,912
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111018
Feb 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 108,961 - 108,980 of132,912
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••