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

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

There are 142583 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111665 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The specific topic under consideration was original writings which became part of the Bible, not the beginnings of writing. So your contribution was not relevant.
The deepest roots of creation myths must necessarily reside in primitive shamanism, and in that regard "my contribution" is entirely relevant since the original writings of Genesis are not only unavailable, but are almost certainly evolved from language(s) predating Akkadian (Enuma Elish).(Please spare me the irrational apologetic fideism.)

As much as it might be a somewhat interesting exercise in abstraction/distraction, does anyone (besides KAB and Marky) honestly consider lay interpretations across at least four distinct and separate language families of snatched words and phrases from stories that have absolutely no bearing on the evidenced origin of humans to be relevant to "facts in evolution debate?" o.O
KAB

United States

#111666 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
We already know that Hebrews 11:1 is your "supportive data," KAB. What else do you have?
Hebrews 11:1 is only supportive data for the fact that Bible-defined faith must be based on supportive data. You should accept or reject the Bible on supportive data. Do you really want an example of something correct in the Bible, or does it make more sense to provide an example of a purported error which can be scrutinized for confirmation? Perhaps you prefer to just declare confirmation and not allow challenge.
KAB

United States

#111667 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The deepest roots of creation myths must necessarily reside in primitive shamanism, and in that regard "my contribution" is entirely relevant since the original writings of Genesis are not only unavailable, but are almost certainly evolved from language(s) predating Akkadian (Enuma Elish).(Please spare me the irrational apologetic fideism.)
As much as it might be a somewhat interesting exercise in abstraction/distraction, does anyone (besides KAB and Marky) honestly consider lay interpretations across at least four distinct and separate language families of snatched words and phrases from stories that have absolutely no bearing on the evidenced origin of humans to be relevant to "facts in evolution debate?" o.O
The dataless assertions continue. I think evolution should be considered entirely on its own merits.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111668 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1 is only supportive data for the fact that Bible-defined faith must be based on supportive data. You should accept or reject the Bible on supportive data. Do you really want an example of something correct in the Bible, or does it make more sense to provide an example of a purported error which can be scrutinized for confirmation? Perhaps you prefer to just declare confirmation and not allow challenge.
Since you're offering, yes please. I would like supportive data of "an example of something correct in the Bible..." as long as it is pertinent to additional facts in the evolution debate.
-
While you are at it and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you also explain how, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" might be construed as supportive data?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111669 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1 is only supportive data for the fact that Bible-defined faith must be based on supportive data. You should accept or reject the Bible on supportive data. Do you really want an example of something correct in the Bible, or does it make more sense to provide an example of a purported error which can be scrutinized for confirmation? Perhaps you prefer to just declare confirmation and not allow challenge.
Again: what percentage of a book's claims must be demonstrated true for it to be considered wholly true?

Why should skepticism not be applied when it comes to Bible claims?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111670 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The dataless assertions continue. I think evolution should be considered entirely on its own merits.
That is a dataless assertion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111671 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simple. I'll definitely grant you that. So simple that, characteristically, you provide no data, just assertions. Since you work with highly advanced mathematical concepts, perhaps you could share some of your data from that with us.

Since Cl.(alt) is the Bible the standard for data is pretty low.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111672 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1 is only supportive data for the fact that Bible-defined faith must be based on supportive data. You should accept or reject the Bible on supportive data. Do you really want an example of something correct in the Bible, or does it make more sense to provide an example of a purported error which can be scrutinized for confirmation? Perhaps you prefer to just declare confirmation and not allow challenge.

Heb. 11:1 seems to be a non-sequitur on this subject.

Are you using your phoney bologey translation again.

Youngs Literal Translation renders it as:

"And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction"

Now the NASB translates it as:

Now faith is the [a]assurance of things [b]hoped for, the [c]conviction of things not seen.

With the following footnotes

a. Hebrews 11:1 Or substance
b. Hebrews 11:1 Or expected
c. Hebrews 11:1 Or evidence

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...


So we COULD work that into

'Now faith is the assurance of things expected,[and] the evidence of things not seen'.

Now, what are the evidence for things not seen?

And how do you translate 'hypostasis'?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111673 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The dataless assertions continue. I think evolution should be considered entirely on its own merits.

When you say "evolution" do you mean the Theory of evolution or the Fact of evolution.

Disambiguation is important here.

Of course the former is the explanation of evolution and the predictions derived from evolution. The later is the observed fact of evolution (observed facts are always the basis of theories).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111674 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again: what percentage of a book's claims must be demonstrated true for it to be considered wholly true?
Why should skepticism not be applied when it comes to Bible claims?

As to history, scientific facts (or not so much), spiritual teachings, or predictions?

Certainly the scientific facts in the bible leave something to be desired. And the history gets more and more iffy the further back you go (even as opinionated history as "objective" history is a recent invention). Likewise the predictions ("prophecy") were mostly written after the fact so don't even qualify as such. Worse, they are STILL sometimes wrong.

But how does one handle spiritual teachings (assuming that such a thing has tangible existence) in an empirical manor? How does one even apply skepticism to them? Can you falsify "love thy neighbor as thy self"?

I certainly agree with applying skepticism or science or objective history (archeology, early source material, historical accounts) but what I see as the most important parts of the bible (indeed, for me the ONLY truly important parts) seem outside of what rationalism or science are able to cope with, at least directly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111675 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The specific topic under consideration was original writings which became part of the Bible, not the beginnings of writing. So your contribution was not relevant.

You lack understanding as per usual.

The creation myth of the bible came from earlier sources. 2 of them were included in the bible and they have a large amount of disagreement between the two versions. That is they are rationally different, even if they are not different to fundy cult members.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111676 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Good exercise. Let's take it one step at a time, so you can raise your concerns along the way.
Jesus dies: Mt. 27:50; Mr. 15:37; Lu. 23:46; Jn. 19:30

Interesting issue:

Lest look at the step just before that. What were Jesus' last words?

According to Matt & Mark they were: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"
Of course that is the Greek transliteration from Hebrew.

Luke says "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

And John (which conflicts with the synoptics on an amazing number of details) he says "It is finished." Of course is it unlikely that anyone could talk at all in the moments before death on a cross, but lets not let the facts hinder us.

Now we can get some play out of the fact that Jesus was given vinegar just before he stated his final words. Vinegar would have the effect of being a mild stimulate which could help him to speak, BUT it makes his immediate death afterward a bit perplexing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111677 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob wants to know if you feel better now, Doc?

I love it when you have no answer.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowell was not presenting his personal view. He was reflecting on the actual state of affairs as they actually exist. You hand wave does not make that disappear to anyone but yourself.
It comes back to the point I have made over and over again; that you are just here for your own selfish reasons. You just need to keep your cognitive dissonance low and this is a way to do that. In other words it makes you feel better about your programming (er.... "belief").
Can you say "Narcissistic", boys and girls? I knew you could!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111678 Mar 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting issue:
Lest look at the step just before that. What were Jesus' last words?
According to Matt & Mark they were: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"
Of course that is the Greek transliteration from Hebrew.
Luke says "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
And John (which conflicts with the synoptics on an amazing number of details) he says "It is finished." Of course is it unlikely that anyone could talk at all in the moments before death on a cross, but lets not let the facts hinder us.
Now we can get some play out of the fact that Jesus was given vinegar just before he stated his final words. Vinegar would have the effect of being a mild stimulate which could help him to speak, BUT it makes his immediate death afterward a bit perplexing.
KAB supposes he said ALL of those things as his last words, and it's just some weird oddity that two heard and remembered only one thing, one remembered only another thing, and a fourth only remembered yet another thing, but ABSOLUTELY NO OVERLAP across those three things. But, totally reliable.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111679 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you're offering, yes please. I would like supportive data of "an example of something correct in the Bible..." as long as it is pertinent to additional facts in the evolution debate.
-
While you are at it and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you also explain how, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" might be construed as supportive data?
Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld", is supportive of Bible recommended/approved faith.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111680 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again: what percentage of a book's claims must be demonstrated true for it to be considered wholly true?
Why should skepticism not be applied when it comes to Bible claims?
100 percent of those tested must be verified true. Beyond that, it's a judgment call as to when a sufficient number have been verified. The Bible has been subjected to such testing and shown itself to be a reliable source.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111681 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a dataless assertion.
This is so chronically abused, it's time to see how teachable your side is. An assertion is a statement in which that being claimed is presented as being true. That which is offered as an idea/possibility, often identifiable by a qualifier such as "I think", is therefore not an assertion.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111682 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld", is supportive of Bible recommended/approved faith.
Well, there's your problem, right there!

You're using a Bootleg Bible.

You should always check that your translations are certified.

Here: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

That's not even NEARLY the same thing - you see that, right?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111683 Mar 5, 2013
CM wrote: "While you are at it and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you also explain how, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" might be construed as supportive data?"
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld", is supportive of Bible recommended/approved faith.
I'm sorry but I must point out that is a null response. The verse merely defines the word "faith" and does not provide any supportive information. Your answer is like saying that the phrase, "Belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" strengthens one's beliefs. Please provide an explanation of how Hebrews 11:1 provides any "supportive data."

Not to be a boor, but might I remind you that,
"... yes please. I would like supportive data of "an example of something correct in the Bible..." as long as it is pertinent to additional facts in the evolution debate." is still pending an answer.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111684 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is so chronically abused, it's time to see how teachable your side is. An assertion is a statement in which that being claimed is presented as being true. That which is offered as an idea/possibility, often identifiable by a qualifier such as "I think", is therefore not an assertion.
I agree that it is chronically abused, but I'm certain we would disagree by whom.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I think evolution should be considered entirely on its own merits.
If I were addressing your opinion you could have a point. However, I was referring to the validity of your statement in light of your posting record.

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) 46 min Paul Porter1 20,590
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr red and right 171,795
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 6
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 35
News Intelligent design 11 hr Paul Porter1 3
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 23 hr Paul Porter1 266
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 23 hr Paul Porter1 33
More from around the web