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

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 ... Full Story
KAB

United States

#111743 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way is that implied in the verse? It reads just the opposite. That we should have (blind) faith in things unseen.
Did you miss the references to assurance and evidence in the verse? I wonder why that would be?
KAB

United States

#111744 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, leprechaun myths are from demonstrably reliable sources, so you believe in them since the god you believe in is mentioned in a demonstrably unreliable source.
Provide one.
KAB

United States

#111745 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shouldn't I ignore the qualifiers when the primary is unacceptable? Should I only break my arm a little or shoot my dog some? I don't pick and choose HOW and HOW MUCH to ignore of scripture - what do you take me for, a CHRISTIAN?
I'll give you the short list. 1)I think the NWT is a demonstrably proven bad translation of an ancient tome that is both half fictitious and entirely irrelevant to the topic. 2)I don't hold blind faith as being something to aspire to. 3) I have no inclination to self-inflict a psychotic break from reality or the psychological equivalent of a frontal lobotomy. Need I go on?
Let's put the shoe back on the right foot here.
Why are you unwilling to consider secular answers to a secular questions in a secular topic? Are you afraid the Elders are watching?
I'm not unwilling to consider any answers. Provide one along with its purportedly confirming data, and let's see where it leads.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111746 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the confirming data,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Are you confused as to what 'confirmation' is or as to what 'data' is?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111747 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know me and labels. I meant to refer to all genetic changes. If I used the wrong label, I appologize.

Then you statement is not true. Total genetic change over time is more than enough to support evolution. In fact it makes some wonder as to why evolution does not progress at an even faster rate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111748 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the references to assurance and evidence in the verse? I wonder why that would be?

Because you are misunderstanding the verse and are using a garbage translation. I provided Young Literal translation among my reference verses and the NASB (which is kind enough to provide alternative translations).


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111749 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide one.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/336...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111750 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not unwilling to consider any answers. Provide one along with its purportedly confirming data, and let's see where it leads.

Based on the evidence (your past history of posts) this is an outrageous lie.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111751 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sources didn't mention the unique sediment layer of material washed down from the sides of the crater and estimated to be about 4200 years old.
I coined the phrase "global scale flood gauge" in recognition of the inherent functionality of its structure and surroundings.
Then provide the source that says there is unique material that is 4200 years old.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111752 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide one.
The encyclopedia Britannica.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111753 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
CLEARLY, "evidence" says what I think it says.
Yes, you clearly just make things up as you go. Not surprising.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111754 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The main difficulty is understanding the meaning of the first phrase. Please explain it in your own words.
Okay, I'll go slower for you.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".

"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.

In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111755 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the references to assurance and evidence in the verse? I wonder why that would be?
Poetry.

It's not supposed to be taken literally.

Folklore likewise.

Folklore that's been deliberately mangled out of all recognition to support a particular power base, infinitely more so.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111756 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you are misunderstanding the verse and are using a garbage translation. I provided Young Literal translation among my reference verses and the NASB (which is kind enough to provide alternative translations).
Naturally, you choose the translation(s) you like rather than check the data to determine the range of valid renderings.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111757 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111758 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide the source that says there is unique material that is 4200 years old.
I was hoping you would ask. Please remember this when I ask for data. I will.

http://www.geotop.ca/upload/files/publication...
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111759 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The encyclopedia Britannica.
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111760 Mar 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll go slower for you.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".
"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.
In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.
I can't make sense of it either. Fortunately, there are renderings which are readily understood.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111761 Mar 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Poetry.
It's not supposed to be taken literally.
Folklore likewise.
Folklore that's been deliberately mangled out of all recognition to support a particular power base, infinitely more so.
Please provide some data to confirm your assertion. Otherwise, it's worthless.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111762 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually evolution makes no mention at all whether or not a God was involved. Evolution doesn't care whether a God started it all off or not. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts.
So IF there is such a thing as (a) God, it used evolution. Or it's a liar.
It's just that fundies like to tell their god what it can and cannot do.
It's you who just indicated you would only allow God to do evolution, even tho design fits the available data better?

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 11 min MikeF 176,988
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min messianic114 149,888
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min thetruth 16,902
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Chimney1 1,405
Science Under Siege 4 hr paul porter 8
Humans DID evolve from apes! 10 hr emrenil 6
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 12 hr Chimney1 717
More from around the web