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

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

There are 143934 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

#111117 Feb 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So the bible is inerrant in some instances but make casual, off the cuff remarks in others. What characterizes the difference?
The Bible is inerrant in either case. An approximation is not an error, and you are apparently not math saavy. Approximation is a legitimate error free matematical process.
KAB

United States

#111118 Feb 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, your god doesn't give a crap about accuracy or he would have made sure the many translations agreed with one another.
That wouldn't have suited his purpose (Hebrews 4:12).

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111119 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a matter of inability to prove otherwise.
It's your inability to develop any critical thinking skill whatsoever.
Isn't critical thinking one of those things you fundies keep harping about? One has to wonder why since they evidently have no need for it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111120 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is inerrant in either case. An approximation is not an error, and you are apparently not math saavy. Approximation is a legitimate error free matematical process.
Since you can't even spell 'mathematical', your appraisal of my skills in the field seem less than worthless.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111121 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That wouldn't have suited his purpose (Hebrews 4:12).
His purpose being the creation of multiple translations that disagree so as to confuse his beloved children. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Idiot.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111122 Feb 25, 2013
lacrustine
inland depressions or damned riverine channels containing standing water; they can be large or small areas and permanently or intermittently inundated; tranquil lake environment as opposed to large ocean or flowing water in a river, etc.

My translator is well-educated and only knows lacrustian.
KAB

United States

#111123 Feb 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you continue to do so.
<quoted text>
BS.
I admit that I have done my share of finding apparent Bible errors and attempting to confirm them, but, like you, so far have been unable to confirm even one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111124 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit that I have done my share of finding apparent Bible errors and attempting to confirm them, but, like you, so far have been unable to confirm even one.
You see what you want to see.
KAB

United States

#111125 Feb 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know the church fathers didn't limit their focus to the timing of John. If you can't provide the relatively small amount of data pertinent to confirming that timing then so be it. I will gladly go to the specific portion of another forum which addresses this specific matter by providing confirming data. Just provide the specific reference.
KAB

United States

#111126 Feb 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I consider you intellectually dishonest, mentally lazy, functionally illiterate and you never make an effort to start a search.
I'm comfortable with that.
KAB

United States

#111127 Feb 25, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What's the fuss, since we apparently agree P52 dates to the first half of the second century CE?
KAB

United States

#111128 Feb 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Purple is not an invisible attribute. QED

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111129 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Now you're butt covering. It was not an accurate paraphrase at all. It was completely wrong and it never said that Neanderthals were not human. It never answered it's own question.<quoted text>You were wrong because you had the site saying something that it didn't say, and in fact, gave evidence to the opposite. It said they could innerbreed which is evidence they were human!<quoted text>There is nothing wrong with paraphrasing. It is wrong to tell a lie, and when caught, claim you were paraphrasing. In this kind of forum, a cut and paste is much more effective, which is why you couldn't do it in this case.
Sorry you are unable to interpret my writing.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111130 Feb 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>nor have you.
Jesus may very well be a myth.

That means you are probably talking to yourself..:-)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111131 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the fuss, since we apparently agree P52 dates to the first half of the second century CE?
It means they use circular reasoning. Do not allow dating.
But given that the other material is gnostic and dated, it does not even mean that the text is even from john or stating what they claim it states.
We had the same nonsens with the DSS. The gospel written before jesus was even invented from misconception.
KAB

United States

#111132 Feb 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you agree that MAAT is wrong in his contention that John was written centuries after the other Gospels?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111133 Feb 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus may very well be a myth.
That means you are probably talking to yourself..:-)
He definitely is. An anthropomorphosis of the saviour concept.
At fist they would however have used christ (and probably not as smearred one but in the same way it stated before IUXU or XAIA-
'simple man'), no mention of jesus.
But the worst of it is that this happened due to wrong translations and misunderstanding central ideas in the torah.

So that's the legacy.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111134 Feb 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit that I have done my share of finding apparent Bible errors and attempting to confirm them, but, like you, so far have been unable to confirm even one.
Speak for yourself, KAB.

Un-a-ble: Adjective
Lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
Synonyms
incapable - incompetent - unfit - inefficient

Oh, I see you were. Never mind.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111135 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?
Science has archaeological, paleoanthropological, and DNA evidence that Homo-sapiens first shows up around 200,000 years ago and that humankind (Homo-sapiens) was never down to just 1 or 4 mating pairs.

And then there are the other hominids; some that roamed the earth for a few million years and eventually led to us. Homo-ergaster, Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, Homo-Neanderthalensis, etc., etc. and they walked upright and made tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ev...
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...

How does this fit into the Adam and Eve hypothesis?
KAB

United States

#111136 Feb 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It exists
2. it is not filled with sediment.
Actually, the Barringer Meteor Crater contains hundreds of feet of lake sediment.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min woodtick57 173,789
News Intelligent design 15 hr FREE SERVANT 23
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mon GreyGhost 178,696
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Aug 30 Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Aug 30 Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Aug 30 Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Aug 30 Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web