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

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

There are 169997 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

#112016 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is certain that certain things in science are certainly certain, but certain things are certainly not certainly certain.
Capice?
That's been my point all along. Welcome aboard. Now if you can only convince the Guy and the rest of the gang. They won't accept it from me. What's worse, they refuse the conclusion to which confirming scientific data leads.
KAB

United States

#112017 Mar 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Noahic Flood is established as "a cultural creation myth claim no more credible than any other...."
<quoted text>
That works for me, as well.
I request that you provide your data that the Bible is a demonstrated reliable history source.
We'll start with your side's favorite Bible non-error, Pi=3.
Pi expressed as one digit is 3. The Bible nowhere shows Pi=3 used to make anything. The whole notion stems from a description of a "round" basin which doesn't clarify the resolution of the measurements, exactly how they were made, or the precise shape of the basin (i.e., round vs a "perfect" circle).

Which point do you want next?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112018 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing provided has withstood scrutiny, including your marine contamination hypothesis.
YOUR scrutiny? LOL! You survey the research you've asked for and the physical evidence presented and continually say, "Nope, that's not the data I'm looking for. Nope, that's not data I'm looking for. There isn't any data here that supports my demonstrably reliable book - the data must be wrong or missing."

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I'll just sit on the sidelines and provide data as I see the need unless someone requests my fuller participation.
I REQUEST that you provide your data that the Bible is a demonstrated reliable history source.

Or as with SO MUCH other data, is Matthew 5:37 not within your scrutiny?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112019 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll start with your side's favorite Bible non-error, Pi=3.
Pi expressed as one digit is 3. The Bible nowhere shows Pi=3 used to make anything. The whole notion stems from a description of a "round" basin which doesn't clarify the resolution of the measurements, exactly how they were made, or the precise shape of the basin (i.e., round vs a "perfect" circle).
Which point do you want next?
By most accounts, Solomon's palace and temple were a masterworks. Do you presume that they would be able to cast a huge metal tub but not make it "round" in the classic sense? I will even grant that pi = 3 is an approximation and a limitation of the arithmetic systems available at the time.
However, what is at issue is not whether Solomon's craftsmen were incompetent or scribes were poor mathematicians, but whether the Bible is confirmed error free (which we know it is not) or a "demonstrably reliable source" - an allegation which you have yet to begin to accomplish, especially regarding the Pentateuch.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#112020 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
Sorry for the lack of specificity. The cross-section of interest is that related to the diameter of the core (i.e., horizontal cross-section).
Hey. It's a demonstrated reliable core. Prove it isn't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#112021 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do I have to state that I know of no physical data confirming the global flood before your side stops acting as if I have asserted otherwise?
It's your incessant "could have!" crap that brings it on. Of course there is no physical data. Because it NEVER HAPPENED!
KAB

United States

#112022 Mar 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR scrutiny? LOL! You survey the research you've asked for and the physical evidence presented and continually say, "Nope, that's not the data I'm looking for. Nope, that's not data I'm looking for. There isn't any data here that supports my demonstrably reliable book - the data must be wrong or missing."
<quoted text>
I REQUEST that you provide your data that the Bible is a demonstrated reliable history source.
Or as with SO MUCH other data, is Matthew 5:37 not within your scrutiny?
I don't just "say". I have provided data and/or identified holes in data provided by others. I have never stated that the data must be wrong or missing. I have always shown what is wrong or missing about the data provided.
KAB

United States

#112023 Mar 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
By most accounts, Solomon's palace and temple were a masterworks. Do you presume that they would be able to cast a huge metal tub but not make it "round" in the classic sense? I will even grant that pi = 3 is an approximation and a limitation of the arithmetic systems available at the time.
However, what is at issue is not whether Solomon's craftsmen were incompetent or scribes were poor mathematicians, but whether the Bible is confirmed error free (which we know it is not) or a "demonstrably reliable source" - an allegation which you have yet to begin to accomplish, especially regarding the Pentateuch.
It's not clear to me. Are you counting Pi=3 as a Bible error or not?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112024 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have only asserted that the Bible has failed. Confirming that continues to prove elusive.

Actually that was pretty easy. We have examined multiple examples. The bible isn't even clear about who killed Goliath. Sure, it is just a scribal error..... but it is a scribal error IN the BIBLE.

You have only asserted that the Bible is a "demonstrated reliable history source". Confirming that continues to prove elusive.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112025 Mar 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, you get a buzzer for that. There were no snakes in Ireland to drive out. Even metaphorically. One can easily defend a claim that the pagans were no better or worse than their 5th century/migration period/middle ages Catholic successors.(But it would be far off-topic and let's not launch into it.)

It was a metaphor to those who concocted the metaphor.

That's all I'm saying.

In reality the pagans were probably BETTER people.

BTW, St. Patrick was not even from Ireland. At least the original Patrick wasn't.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112026 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing provided has withstood scrutiny, including your marine contamination hypothesis.

We are not the ones that need to need to provide data that withstands scrutiny, per the scientific method.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112027 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's been my point all along. Welcome aboard. Now if you can only convince the Guy and the rest of the gang. They won't accept it from me. What's worse, they refuse the conclusion to which confirming scientific data leads.

That has not been my experience with "the gang". They seem willing to go where science is. They only get their nose out of joint when the conclusions are twisted or forced.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112028 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll start with your side's favorite Bible non-error, Pi=3.
Pi expressed as one digit is 3. The Bible nowhere shows Pi=3 used to make anything. The whole notion stems from a description of a "round" basin which doesn't clarify the resolution of the measurements, exactly how they were made, or the precise shape of the basin (i.e., round vs a "perfect" circle).
Which point do you want next?

Um..... you need to go back and reread that passage again.

How many times are the terms, almost, about, approximately,..... used in that passage? The Bible states those were the measurements.

Are you saying the bible is lying or in error at this point?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112029 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't just "say". I have provided data and/or identified holes in data provided by others. I have never stated that the data must be wrong or missing. I have always shown what is wrong or missing about the data provided.

ROTFLMFAO.

I have always shown what is wrong about the universe being made of atoms which is why I provided my invisible purple ping-pong ball theory......

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112030 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not clear to me. Are you counting Pi=3 as a Bible error or not?

It is wrong.
It is in the bible.

You cannot round pi down past 3.14 and still have a useful number.

That is like saying in hundreds I am a hundred years old. I am still only 52.

KAB

United States

#112031 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that was pretty easy. We have examined multiple examples. The bible isn't even clear about who killed Goliath. Sure, it is just a scribal error..... but it is a scribal error IN the BIBLE.
You have only asserted that the Bible is a "demonstrated reliable history source". Confirming that continues to prove elusive.
Demonstrating the reliable source confirmation is ongoing. It gets stronger with every new asserted error which is shown to not withstand scrutiny, coupled with the fact that no purported errors have withstood scrutiny thusfar. BTW, is the Goliath scribal error in the oldest available manuscripts?
KAB

United States

#112032 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not the ones that need to need to provide data that withstands scrutiny, per the scientific method.
I've provided data. The scrutiny has to provide its own. So far the scrutiny is an assertion.
KAB

United States

#112033 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That has not been my experience with "the gang". They seem willing to go where science is. They only get their nose out of joint when the conclusions are twisted or forced.
So, do we now have "gang" agreement that there is room for certainty in science?
KAB

United States

#112034 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Um..... you need to go back and reread that passage again.
How many times are the terms, almost, about, approximately,..... used in that passage? The Bible states those were the measurements.
Are you saying the bible is lying or in error at this point?
I think the usage is the same as for exactly and precisely. It's left unspecific/generic.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112035 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not clear to me. Are you counting Pi=3 as a Bible error or not?
I'll generously give the benefit of the doubt - others might not.
As I've stated before, there is at least one unlikely scenario in which the measurements of the molten sea could be roughly accurate. If the brim was one hand breadth and the diameter was an OD measurement while the circumference was an ID measurement, for example. I place a practical limit on expectations of accuracy from bronze age goatherds and scribes - but apparently I still hold craftsmen to higher standards than you do.
Naturally, this does not address the flagrant exaggeration of its capacity for 2,000 baths.
Next? The field of failures in the Pentateuch is fertile. Ask YHWH to show you a lie and start tossing darts at page one.

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) 5 hr Into The Night 95,399
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 7 hr Dogen 113
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 8 hr Dogen 265
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 17 hr andet1987 1,848
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 19 hr 15th Dalai Lama 14
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Wed Rose_NoHo 106
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... Wed Rose_NoHo 26