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

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

There are 142499 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

#111321 Feb 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose it would.
Is 'extremities. from your (NWT) New World Translation Bible. A Bible that is known to have changed wording in it??
It's from the meaning of the Hebrew and has nothing to do with the NWT.
KAB

United States

#111322 Feb 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Numerous sources contributing to one theory - each one correlating the other.
On the other side of the coin you provide a great insight - One (biblical) source of support, many ideologies? Reliability = GIGO.
Start comparing each of the ideologies to the Bible, and watch them drop like flies. See which one remains completely aligned with the reliable Bible.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111323 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
khatan
Bridegroom.

But it is also a loan in Arab frm hebrew were it means complating recitations, spelled khatam. Comparable too:
All men in the synagogue (in non-Orthodox Judaism also women) are called up to read the Torah. The honour of being called up is called aliya (Hebrew for accession). Particularly blessed are those who are called up to read the last part of the Pentateuch (aliya khatan Torah – accession of the Bridegroom of the Torah) and the first part of the Five Books of Moses (aliya khatan Bereshit – accession of the Bridegroom of the Beginning).

The land of Israel as bride , YHWH the groom. Khatan also: that which binds.
And we find arab kuli khatam- refering to circumcision. In particularly the part of skin. Something to bind the 200 to Abram before going to release Lot.

So Dogen i would not automatically use 'groom'.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111324 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Start comparing each of the ideologies to the Bible, and watch them drop like flies. See which one remains completely aligned with the reliable Bible.
Okay. Find me a reliable Bible and we'll give it a whirl.(I'm partial to the Machinist's Bible - it's by far the most accurate I've come across.)
KAB

United States

#111325 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand the rules for evidence in science.[actually you don't understand any science at all including that bats are not fowl].
Multiple sources of evidence are called Corroborating Evidence. Every additional source of corroborating evidence significantly increases the likelihood that one is on the right track. talkorigins may be a bit behind the times listing only 29 evidences, but it is certainly in the right ballpark.
Evidences for evolution come not only from biology, but also from physics, chemistry, paleontology,.........
Which of the evidences cannot be attributed to design?
KAB

United States

#111326 Feb 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You write:
"BTW as a bonus, your source states that C14 dating places the origins of writing, state societies, and civilization, including Sumer and Egypt at 4500 years ago."
I just sent an email to the Smithsonian asking for a clarification in their dating graphic and that dating of writing and civilizations. I'll show it to you when I get a reply. Its been pretty much established that people in the Babylonian area were writing by 3,600+- to 3,100+- BC
We have known for a long time that Jericho dated back to around 9,000+- BC and the civilization of the Sumerians is dated to 4,500+- to 4,000+- BC.
Now Babylon is dated to approximately 2,286+- to 1,894+- BC and the Akkadians to 2,334+- BC
Mesopotamia continues to hold the honor as the area of the 'Birth of Civilization,'but not the 'Cradle of Humanity' honor.
The last I heard scientists were still of the opinion that Egypt's civilization began with the rise of Narmer around 3,100+- BC and the merging of upper and lower Egypt.
You write:
"What's in a label? Adam and Eve were the first humans (i.e., what science today calls "modern humans").
Yeah....200,000 years ago, and probably part of a group, and sharing the land with Neanderthals in Africa.
You write:
"To somewhat sensitize you to the realm, here's some puzzling data from your reference.
mtDNA varies among "modern" humans by an average of 8 base substitutions. "Modern" human mtDNA varies from Neanderthals by 27 substitutions. Neanderthals mtDNA varies from one another by 20 bases, but they are stated to be less diverse than "modern humans.
Since I don't want to give anything away I'll just ask what can you conclude from this?"
Nothing at this point.
You could at least note that the numbers and statements don't seem to jive. You could also be clear that you provide no data for any of your times except for that which I've already called into question.
KAB

United States

#111327 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Equally, those who want to find reasons TO accept the Bible as inerrant will not be prevented from doing so even tho their course is demonstrably a matter of choice rather than the only valid conclusion.
You got that right, given the clarification that this all rests on not a single Bible error having been confirmed. So those choosing the errant position do so without even one confirmed error on the books, but as we both acknowledge they're not prevented from thinking they have such.
KAB

United States

#111328 Feb 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"A lake formed in the bottom of the (Barringer) crater, and sediments accumulated until the bowl was only 550 feet deep."
http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_...
Think it out, KAB.
How's this? I THINK it would be good to determine as conclusively as possible, at what time(s) the crater has had a lake in it.
KAB

United States

#111329 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
For the same reason I don't think that Harry Potter contributed to the last presidential election.
As long as it's only what you think, that's not a problem.
KAB

United States

#111330 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.
Characteristically firing blanks again, I see.
KAB

United States

#111331 Feb 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. Find me a reliable Bible and we'll give it a whirl.(I'm partial to the Machinist's Bible - it's by far the most accurate I've come across.)
NWT

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111332 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Characteristically firing blanks again, I see.
When you say something worth responding to, I will. If you're just going to puke word salad, I'll not waste my time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111333 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A scribal error is not an error in "the Bible", is it? It's an error in a copy made by the copyist.

The error is IN the bible so yes, it is an error in the bible.

You are hosed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111334 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Hebrew word involved doesn't have to mean "fowl", does it? As you like to state only when it appears to be to your advantage, we've been over this before, haven't we? Remember Genesis chapter one? So no Bible error, no license to move on.

Hebrew word: &#1489;&#1512;&#14 89;&#1493;&#1512;
Xlit: bar-bur
Trans: FOWL

I looked at 10 different references. All say bird.

A literal translation could be grain eating bird.

Of course that would leave out bats (which eat insects) and flying insects.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111335 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
NWT
SNAFU FUBAR LOL

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111336 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Start comparing each of the ideologies to the Bible, and watch them drop like flies. See which one remains completely aligned with the reliable Bible.

So why do you stick with a belief system that "drop like flies"?

Every denomination believes it is the most "completely aligned with the reliable Bible". But they are all wrong.

Yours is better than most in some ways and worse than most in a lot of ways.

In the end it is an epic fail and no one has done more to convince me of their failure than yourself.

Thanks for that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111337 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The error is IN the bible so yes, it is an error in the bible.
You are hosed.
Your forgetting about the KAB Flexible Dictionary where words can mean damn near anything. An error could be not an error if you want it to be,

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111338 Feb 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Bridegroom.
But it is also a loan in Arab frm hebrew were it means complating recitations, spelled khatam. Comparable too:
All men in the synagogue (in non-Orthodox Judaism also women) are called up to read the Torah. The honour of being called up is called aliya (Hebrew for accession). Particularly blessed are those who are called up to read the last part of the Pentateuch (aliya khatan Torah – accession of the Bridegroom of the Torah) and the first part of the Five Books of Moses (aliya khatan Bereshit – accession of the Bridegroom of the Beginning).
The land of Israel as bride , YHWH the groom. Khatan also: that which binds.
And we find arab kuli khatam- refering to circumcision. In particularly the part of skin. Something to bind the 200 to Abram before going to release Lot.
So Dogen i would not automatically use 'groom'.

I enjoy your posts.

Thanks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111339 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Your forgetting about the KAB Flexible Dictionary where words can mean damn near anything. An error could be not an error if you want it to be,

Yes, he has great ability to rationalize on the fly and often doubles down on big words and lofty prose when he gets into trouble.

The Tao Te Ching talks about the man of the Tao (truly good man)

http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu38.html

KAB is sort of the Taoist antichrist (anti-taoist)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111340 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it's only what you think, that's not a problem.

IT was only what you think that started this.

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) 10 min ChristineM 20,521
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 10 min THE LONE WORKER 231
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 2 hr Strel 8
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr dirtclod 171,619
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 5 hr Paul Porter1 30
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 6 hr Paul Porter1 6
Terms need to be defined better Mon MikeF 7
More from around the web