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

There are 20 comments on the Mar 15, 2009, Asheville Citizen-Times story 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

#111824 Mar 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided the data. You ignored it.
I provided evidence of what biblical scholars say about it AND WHY.
You ignored it.
I provided examples of specific verses that were mistranslated (for the apparent goal of promoting the Watchtower cult).
Ignored.
Now YOU need to provide the evidence that the JW "bible" (falsely so called) should not be distributed as low grade toilet paper to low income families. At least in that capacity it may serve some greater good.
You provided a reference to a sizable body of info. I showed that the first item was erroneous, thus not warranting further consideration until you identify specific wheat among the chaff.

The opinions of scholars, especially those pre-biased for one side, are not the data.

You have not provided data demonstrating mistranslation. You have just provided alternative translations and asserted that NWT renderings are mistranslations.

Your final comment is characteristic of the quality of data you have provided thusfar. Typical Dr. D.

Try providing one specific verse and a detailed analysis and explanation of the mistranslation. At this point I doubt you're capable.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111825 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You provided a reference to a sizable body of info. I showed that the first item was erroneous, thus not warranting further consideration until you identify specific wheat among the chaff.

Sorry dude, but you did not even look at the list. If you did you kept your comments to yourself and just asked me to pick one. It is the body of evidence that refutes or makes a point. Not one datum.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> The opinions of scholars, especially those pre-biased for one side, are not the data.

I did not pick the scholars. The Watchtowerites picked them (or I should say "quotemined" them. But when there comments are put back into larger context (what the site did) it exposes the fraud.

JW's are good at lying. They are all under the influence of satan who is the author of lies.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You have not provided data demonstrating mistranslation.

This is a lie. You are a good JW. You lie well as your master commands you to do.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You have just provided alternative translations and asserted that NWT renderings are mistranslations.

Lets do the math.

Other translations vs. JW cult translation.

Other translation: Professional translators.
JW Cult version: Guys without H.S. diplomas, no Greek and no Hebrew knowledge.

Other translations: Aware of the issues of culture, history, concurrent events, etc.
JW Cult version: Apparently oblivious to these issues.

Other translations: Professionals
JW Cult version: amateurs.

Other translations: each with their own agenda, but in substantial agreement with each other.
JW cult version: Professionals say they aren't even close and that they lied about what source material they used.

Other translations: serious scholarship.
JW cult version: serious joke.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try providing one specific verse and a detailed analysis and explanation of the mistranslation. At this point I doubt you're capable.

I have provided you with a list of just some of the more glaring ones. You ignored that too.

You are very deceitful. But that is characteristic of those whom satan works through.

Fortunately the grip of satan is limited. Nearly 70% of children raised as JW's eventually leave the cult. There are literally thousands of web sites by and for former JW cult members. Some preach against the cult. Others simply help people recover a normal life.

To be a true cult follower you have to submit reports on your attempted brainwashing of others, monthly, I believe.

They have the highest conversion rate and highest rate of membership loss of any major cult in the US.

JWism is a totalitarian regime where genuine dissent is not tolerated.

BTW, prophecy is an indication that word is from God and FALSE prophecy is an indication that the word is from that other guy.

What is the JW track record on prophecy? 100% right?

75%?


50......



Oh......
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111826 Mar 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A dateless assertion predicated on your misunderstanding of the text.
Is that the best you can do?
What is the correct understanding? When I see that, I'll reconsider.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111827 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does contain some poetry. Nothing prevents poetry from being completely factual or requires poetry to be unreal. Also, the Bible does not present itself as folklore. I await your provision of data to confirm your assertion.
The best poetry in the bible is pornographic...

And who cares what it "presents itself" as?

I could present myself as Emperor Norton II with better evidence.

After all, I can prove that I exist.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111828 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you state that there has been overtopping, is there foreign detritus mingled with that deposition?
Good grief, son - has MazHere found a surrogate or a protege?
The crater is over a million years old and because it is a hole in granite (as opposed to the limestone of Arizona) has survived 2 glaciations. I would count ice sheets and their melts as "over-topping," wouldn't you?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111829 Mar 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And it left behind no evidence.
You said the flood has been neither confirmed nor refuted by the evidence. Is the proper toline to accept such a story as true BEFORE it has been demonstrated to be true or is it AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true?
Weird phone autocorrect. Is the proper time to accept such a story as true BEFORE it has been demonstrated to be true or is it AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true?

Why do you think you have a better methodology than science, when your methodology has never produced anything useful in the history of ever? Why is skepticism a problem when it comes to Bible stories?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111830 Mar 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not at all what my post was about. You seem to have reading comprehension issues.
But I love to play so.....
You are indicating that the bibles story about Noah and his family being the only survivers is a lie?
And as it is not even an original work it is not even a good lie.
Presumably the older myths are more accurate as they are closer to the source. That is one of your standards, or do I have that wrong as well.
So why use Noah's myth?
The oldest available record is not necessarily the oldest account. It's entirely possible that the original account is that contained in the Bible, and that it was retained and modified by various peoples as they dispersed throughout the earth.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111831 Mar 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No harm, no foul.
I misunderstood you when you stated "Also, the Bible does not present itself as folklore"
The Bible doesn't present itself as belonging to the untrue variety of folklore.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111832 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For the first part, it's not blind faith if it's based on supporting data, which is what Heb. 11:1 seems to require..

DOGEN:
Heb 1:11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.- NIV

11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. NRSV

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. KJB

CLEARLY this verse is not saying what you think it is saying.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the verse seems to indicate how faith in things unseeen can and should be acquired via evidence. We can't directly see subatomic particles, but we can gather evidence so as to have faith that they exist.

DOGEN:
In what way is that implied in the verse? It reads just the opposite. That we should have (blind) faith in things unseen.

MAAT:
Very greek would be the insistence on faith for the simple mans eyes.(i.e. only a simpleton/unlearned uneducated person, would put credence in it, but that's enough to rule them/convince them. Like snake-oil on the fare.)
What suffices for a simple man, would never do for a learned man.
The verse just gives a definition of faith.
It does not suggest anything.
(how do you get in those discussions?)
But the surrounding text and f.i. John v. Thomas states that people shold believe i things they cannot see, have no tangible evidence for and than start to list miracles.(It's thus contradictory to the message it first gave.)
But to jews it than means that it is even more suspect and spurious because miracles are akin to witch-craft thus ungodly (translation for christians: againt OT tenets thus) as such.
Failing in every sense and way.
it also makes it very unlikely that the first christians were jews. More likely they were former aramaic Baal and Astarte/Mari H Annat believers from Syria.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111833 Mar 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Naturalistic "? Absent compelling evidence, there's no reason to suppose a "supernaturalistic" origin.
Science has no answer for the origin of life. They've never observed it, and they can't replicate it, and due to even the most simple life forms being complex to the extreme, then there are no natural explanations to the origin of life. A supernatural designer is by far the best explanation.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111834 Mar 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes.. I've often heard this proposition before.
There is a reason for that!
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text> Only the devout believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist or agnostic than it does to be a zealot. I contend that this speaks toward an inability to even comprehend a mode of thought that is not saturated/obsessed with the supernatural.
I'm not obsessed with the supernatural. I'm obsessed with the reality around us. THis reality shows me that you have no scientific evidence for the origin of life, and thus your world view is not supported by science. You only dishonestly claim it is. That is ALL you can do.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course, I've heard this proposition before, as well.
THere is a reason for that....IT APPLIES!!!
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text> Typically, those who have Faith that life was Created complex and fully formed at the onset have immense difficulty with any hypothesis that relatively complex chemical interactions could become relatively simple biochemical mechanisms.
WHAT????? Complex chemical reactions are relatively simple biochemical mechanisms?!!!!!! That is one of the biggest piles of BS I've seen in here!!!!
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Secular answers are not getting the job done..." so we must regress to theology?[/QUOTE}No, you need to proceed to theology. It is obvious that natural mechanisms are not cutting it!!![QUOTE who="ChromiuMan"] <quoted text> On the contrary. More clues all being discovered all the time, but when one has a mindset that believes complexity and diversity were spontaneously Created by God, even breakthroughs are promulgated as nothing but irrelevant ruses.
THe more "clues" science discovers, the more it is obvious that the origin of life from natural means is impossible.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111835 Mar 8, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi marksman. Glad to see you're still kicking.
You too!
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't read much of your comment past "Here is why atheists and human from non-human evolutionists are illogical" on account of I don't care much for illogical arguments.
Then why do you present them:-)
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, if you please, why atheists are atheists.
They reject that it is possible a GOD exists.
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, in your estimation, is anyone who accepts evolution as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth an atheist?
No, they are just wrong because human from non-human evolution is not the best explanation for the diversity of life. IT has never been observed, tested, nor replicated. It is not science, but a philosophy.
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
God bless you.
you too.....

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111836 Mar 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Science has no answer for the origin of life. They've never observed it, and they can't replicate it, and due to even the most simple life forms being complex to the extreme, then there are no natural explanations to the origin of life. A supernatural designer is by far the best explanation.
Epic fail.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111837 Mar 8, 2013
KAB

United States

#111838 Mar 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack resourcefulness which science demands.
Try 'Noah'.
Thanks for the reference confirming that Britannica doesn't treat Noah's flood as real. This brings us back to whether Britannica is a demonstrated reliable source. Do you know of any confirmed errors in it?
KAB

United States

#111839 Mar 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And it left behind no evidence.
You said the flood has been neither confirmed nor refuted by the evidence. Is the proper toline to accept such a story as true BEFORE it has been demonstrated to be true or is it AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true?
I'm sure it left behind evidence. Discovering/Recognizing that evidence is another matter. A proper time to accept something as true is after it's been reported by a demonstrated reliable source while not confirmed by physical evidence to not be true.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111840 Mar 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure it left behind evidence. Discovering/Recognizing that evidence is another matter. A proper time to accept something as true is after it's been reported by a demonstrated reliable source while not confirmed by physical evidence to not be true.
1) You are sure = Heb. 11:1
2) Discovering/Recognizing evidence is not "another," it is the primary matter.
3) Reputation does not ensure accuracy - especially when that reputation is an unearned and highly disputed attribute.
4) Conclusion does not precede investigation.
5) "A demonstrated reliable source" is not "a demonstrated reliable source" when it is confirmed by physical evidence not to be true.
6) You are not a "demonstrated reliable source." You are merely another tenacious and ardent proponent of blind faith (Heb. 11:1).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111841 Mar 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The oldest available record is not necessarily the oldest account. It's entirely possible that the original account is that contained in the Bible, and that it was retained and modified by various peoples as they dispersed throughout the earth.

You have such a low standard for your data (remotely possible) and such a high standard for sciences (100% proven).

Do the JW's send new zombies to you for hypocrisy training?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111842 Mar 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Science has no answer for the origin of life. They've never observed it, and they can't replicate it, and due to even the most simple life forms being complex to the extreme, then there are no natural explanations to the origin of life. A supernatural designer is by far the best explanation.

Ignoring the obvious fallacy for a moment and concentrating on the incorrect information.

Science has a lot of information on the origin of life. Abiogenesis research, a-life research, creation of artificial cells.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-l...

It is NOT necessary to observe a phenomena in science. It IS necessary to observe evidence for it.

It is not necessary to replicate a phenomena in science. It IS necessary to be able to replicate the research (observations).

So there are evidences of lifes natural origins.

There is no evidence of a designer, much less an activist designer who is forever tinkering with his creation.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111843 Mar 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have such a low standard for your data (remotely possible) and such a high standard for sciences (100% proven).
KAB has standards??? Who knew?
Dogen wrote:
Do the JW's send new zombies to you for hypocrisy training?
Well... At least they'd be learning from the master.

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) 21 min replaytime 161,084
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 5 hr In Six Days 1,409
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Denisova 18,697
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Apr 24 hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web