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

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

There are 141371 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

United States

#111076 Feb 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So how old is the John fragment? Beyond that what is the data for John being written centuries later?
KAB

United States

#111077 Feb 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It appears you have not read/studied the Bible. Have you? Reading/studying what others state about the Bible is not reading/studying the Bible. Note that you, like all your comrades in this forum, did not provide confirming data for even one error. You can only go so far as to declare "we DO have it", but for some reason can't provide it. Why is that do you think?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111078 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So how old is the John fragment? Beyond that what is the data for John being written centuries later?
I've allready told you several times to read the churchfathers. Do that and then compare line for line with John.

I know you are presumably stuck here in this line.
But most of my work is not done in this part of topix, when it comes to religion.
So move to judaism (or a hot christianity v atheist board) and you can read all about it.

And for me it's like rehashing old stuff. Seen it, wondered about inconsistency and incongruency, done the research myself ad nauseam, wrote it all down and moved on.

But in Who's Allah they are right now making mincemeat of the new testament.(and not at all shy in using my resources, without a thank you ;))

The lacrustian made me feel alive again.
Thanks for that one.
KAB

United States

#111079 Feb 25, 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.
Yes, that is my understanding on both points.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111080 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you have not read/studied the Bible. Have you? Reading/studying what others state about the Bible is not reading/studying the Bible. Note that you, like all your comrades in this forum, did not provide confirming data for even one error. You can only go so far as to declare "we DO have it", but for some reason can't provide it. Why is that do you think?
Because I consider you intellectually dishonest, mentally lazy, functionally illiterate and you never make an effort to start a search.
KAB

United States

#111081 Feb 25, 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 otherwisefor 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 8090 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...
When do we get to the data confirming Matthew never met Jesus?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111082 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is my understanding on both points.
I decided first not to repeat myself, but this is so fff stupid.
If i state P52=RP457

And give sites. You apparently do not understand what it is about, nor bothered reading.

They do not allow dating it, but make it at least 138, but the others it is found with are all dated to (Kim) firmly beginning of the second century.

You daft scrouncher.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111083 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Matthew 5:19
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

If you want to be the least then you are doing well.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text>Now, show me 5 things.
1....where is pi mentioned?
2....show where this states that the molten sea was perfectly round.
3.... Show why it is impossible for for this molten sea to measure 30 cubits around it.
4...pi is 3, just not to the infinate fraction level of explanation. a 2x 4 is not 2 x 4 either.
5....Why are you so desperate that you have to sink to this level of ignorant excuses?

1. 1 Kings 7:23-26
2. 1 Kings 7:23 Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form.
3. If the diameter is 10 then the Circumference is 31.42 cubits
If the Circumference is 30 then the diameter is 9.548 cubits.
The math only works if Pi=3. Which it does not.
4.? 3 is off from 3.14 by a factor of a hundred. Do you understand that?
5. Just pointing out the bible has errors, omissions, inaccuracies, etc.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111084 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>How can you do that from an iron lung??
<quoted text>Sorry but fossils aren't arranged at all.

That is not what the fossil record shows.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to interpret them. THey are observable, unlike your world view!!!

Projection.
KAB

United States

#111085 Feb 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are the exact same logic. So by your own logic, Spiderman exists.
No, as I predicted, it's by your logic Spiderman exists, not mine.
Going forward, don't be surprised if I don't respond to your dataless posts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111086 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No Kidding!!!!???<quoted text>No it doesn't. It is giving the measurement of a molten sea, not the definition of pi.

The definition of pi is the circumference divided by the diameter, so the text EXACTLY defines Pi (as 3).

Witness
Circumference: 30
Diameter: 10

30/10 = 3.


Give this story problem to your kids

If you have a pool that is ten feet from brim to brim, circular in form, and thirty feet in circumference, then what is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter.
KAB

United States

#111087 Feb 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry guy, I returned the books to the library long ago. You're library is bound to have them...they were popular books
Try finding the material you need on the net. I routinely do it successfully all the time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111088 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong where it says 300=100 pi. You are wrong where you say therefore pi=3. Pi equals 3.14259+. You are wrong because the bible never says pi is 3. It was giving the measurement of a molten sea, not the definition of pi. You guys are terrible at interpretation.

It gives the DEFINITION of Pi (with an answer of 3).
KAB

United States

#111089 Feb 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Indeed, a dizzying intellect. What's a LACRUSTIAN (lacrustean?) anyway?
KAB

United States

#111090 Feb 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>They're still 50,000 years old.
What of your creation myth now?
If you see a problem, you'll have to state it since I don't.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111091 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The basis for the assertion is the lack of even one confirmed Bible error, combined with the fact that this is not for lack of trying and should be relatively easy to accomplish if the Bible contained errors. Please keep in mind that I refer here to the Bible as defined generally by compilation from oldest available manuscripts. There are numerous confirmed errors in various later versions/translations.
As to the canon, according to the Muratorian Fragment (identifies 170CE canon), it's not Eusebius'.

That the bible contains errors is a fact that all rational people seem to admit. That fundies deny all errors is observed in both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.

"The term "fundamentalism" was originally used in reference to certain Christian groups but today commonly refers to the anti-modernist movements of any religion based on literal interpretation of religious scriptures" - Wikipedia.

I have asked for anyone to detect an error in my assertion that the entire universe is made up of invisible purple ping-pong balls, and to date no errors have been found. Keep in mind it should be relatively easy to prove if I am in error.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111092 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>LOL....yeah right. One, you claim to be agnostic, but you spew humanism. Humanism was deemed a religion by the supreme court in the early 60's. Part of the humanist manifesto adheres to human from non-human evolution. I have been showing you for 3 years how human from non-human evolution is BS. You believe it anyway. So don't tell me who is blinded by their religion. You are not worthy to be that judge.

You are conflating humanism, secular humanism, religious humanism, atheism, and the right of any group of individual to determine what their religion is. Some people list "the force" as their religion on census papers. The Supreme Court simply upheld their 1st amendment rights. That does not mean all humanists consider humanism to be a religion nor are they seeking tax exempt status for their (usually non-religious) beliefs.

And remember, you have been failing for 3 years to support creationism and have not landed a single blow against evolution.

Pretty futile.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111093 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>hahahaha....it is impossible for a molten sea to be measured?....HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!


You are looking a crazy through the rear view mirror.

You DO understand that molten just meant it was a cast metal, right?



wow. Just wow.
KAB

United States

#111094 Feb 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the quote is: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Other than that you are wrong about sedimentation in craters being somehow magically different.
Meteor Crater is great evidence that there was never a global flood in the last 50,000 years.
How is Meteor Crater great evidence that there was never a global flood in the last 50,000 years?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111095 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So how old is the John fragment? Beyond that what is the data for John being written centuries later?

It would have been that particular volume that was written later.

The oldest fragment of John dates between 117 CE and 138. The original text of John is estimated to have been written between 85 and 100 a.d.

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
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 473
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr NoahLovesU 19,082
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr NoahLovesU 164,459
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 6 hr Dogen 1,874
When is Quote Mining Justified? 15 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,618
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu GTID62 86
More from around the web