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

#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.
KAB

United States

#112036 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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......
You provide one of your data posts for a specific point, and I'll repeat my data analysis/response to refresh your memory.
KAB

United States

#112037 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You see. Hebrews 4:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 are true.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112038 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nope, he was Scottish. What percentage of Americans do you suppose will be aware of that while regurgitating myths in church and green beer in pubs?
KAB

United States

#112039 Mar 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again it's not clear to me. Are you offering the 2,000 baths as the next purported error?

BTW, we don't know that a craftsman wrote the basin size passage.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112040 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrating the reliable source confirmation is ongoing.

Sounds like it needs to 'get going' since it appears DOA. If you cannot defend the problems reasonably, rationally and with data then what are we to conclude?


[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text>
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.

As I know you are delusional on this matter and I do not want to upset you too much I will just remind you that you are not doing well supporting the literalism of the bible so far. You have even admitted that it has an error for God sake! Have you no shame?


[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> BTW, is the Goliath scribal error in the oldest available manuscripts?

Yes. Not that it really matters. Few people have access to the oldest manuscripts. People go by what the read in the version they purchase at the bookstore or what is in whatever cult version that is being passed out. Why would God hide the truth in fragments that only scholars have access to?

Is that the sort of thing that makes sense to you?

BTW, how did the JW cult write their version with the oldest manuscripts when most of them didn't even have a library card?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112041 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've provided data. The scrutiny has to provide its own. So far the scrutiny is an assertion.
No, and no.

First, you have provided nothing but assertions. Second, the scrutiny does not have to provide anything, that is up to the one making the assertion, in this case that is your burden.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112042 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again it's not clear to me. Are you offering the 2,000 baths as the next purported error?
BTW, we don't know that a craftsman wrote the basin size passage.
2,000 ablutions might not be, 2,000 baths would be ripe at best. Does the Bible say hand or face washing? Most translations I'm aware of say "baths." Yes, I'd call than an error, but one I'm amenable to overlooking, as it has nothing whatever to do with the creation myth.
I said to throw a divinely guided dart at the Pentateuch. Wherever it lands, you will find a falsity nearby.
Just to be clear - please don't misconstrue or fantasize that you are in any way educational or instructing. The interest in how you defend the indefensible is a little like watching a sloth stalking a petal in a blustery breeze. You really hope that he'll eventually get it despite his limitations and the obstacles of nature.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112043 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So, do we now have "gang" agreement that there is room for certainty in science?

Data is "certain". What is observable is "certain" (evolution, for example).

Theories are never certain.
Explanations are never certain.

Not completely.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#112044 Mar 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Not one drop of science in that statement.
No, that was just a reaction to my post about DNA precursors, water and oxygen all being found all over space. Finding over 2700 planets revolving around other stars in our vicinity.

Then the realization that our galaxy has somewhere around 250 billion stars and our Universe has around 250 billion galaxies.

So the building blocks of life are to be found ALL over space and space is REALLY BIG.

I'll bet life is to be found all over our universe and the earth is not just some egotistical humans belief that "God" made 'us' special.

No science in that post....but some really great science behind it.
KAB

United States

#112045 Mar 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Not that it really matters. Few people have access to the oldest manuscripts. People go by what the read in the version they purchase at the bookstore or what is in whatever cult version that is being passed out. Why would God hide the truth in fragments that only scholars have access to?
Is that the sort of thing that makes sense to you?
BTW, how did the JW cult write their version with the oldest manuscripts when most of them didn't even have a library card?
How can we be sure the Goliath thing really is a scribal error? There were at least a handful of these big guys. Goliath was their champion. His untimely and humiliating demise was a major blow. I can see his people "bestowing" the mantle of "Goliath" on his not so little brother Lahmi. Please don't take this wrong. It's not an assertion, just a thought. One should explore all reasonable possibilities so as not to jump to a wrong conclusion.
KAB

United States

#112046 Mar 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, and no.
First, you have provided nothing but assertions. Second, the scrutiny does not have to provide anything, that is up to the one making the assertion, in this case that is your burden.
Before we get too far off the beaten path here, is it true that per the scientific method, one does not need to provide data which withstands scrutiny?(see link)

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112047 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get too far off the beaten path here, is it true that per the scientific method, one does not need to provide data which withstands scrutiny?(see link)
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Incorrect, as Dogen stated, evidence that withstands scrutiny is required of scientific inquiry.
KAB

United States

#112048 Mar 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
2,000 ablutions might not be, 2,000 baths would be ripe at best. Does the Bible say hand or face washing? Most translations I'm aware of say "baths." Yes, I'd call than an error, but one I'm amenable to overlooking, as it has nothing whatever to do with the creation myth.
I said to throw a divinely guided dart at the Pentateuch. Wherever it lands, you will find a falsity nearby.
Just to be clear - please don't misconstrue or fantasize that you are in any way educational or instructing. The interest in how you defend the indefensible is a little like watching a sloth stalking a petal in a blustery breeze. You really hope that he'll eventually get it despite his limitations and the obstacles of nature.
So what purported error do you want considered?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112049 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get too far off the beaten path here, is it true that per the scientific method, one does not need to provide data which withstands scrutiny?(see link)
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Nice quote-mine.

Are you aware that quote-mining is considered dishonest?
KAB

United States

#112050 Mar 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, as Dogen stated, evidence that withstands scrutiny is required of scientific inquiry.
So we all agree that data which withstands scrutiny is required. Now, this all began when I stated that I have shown with data that your side has not provided data which withstands scrutiny. I will do it again if you identify data you want reconsidered. I have a feeling you, in particular, will get lost in the "data" in these statements and wander off yet again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112051 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How can we be sure the Goliath thing really is a scribal error? There were at least a handful of these big guys. Goliath was their champion. His untimely and humiliating demise was a major blow. I can see his people "bestowing" the mantle of "Goliath" on his not so little brother Lahmi. Please don't take this wrong. It's not an assertion, just a thought. One should explore all reasonable possibilities so as not to jump to a wrong conclusion.

Yes, you are free to make up whatever rationalization suits you. Just remember, what is in the bible is in the bible and what is not in the bible is not in the bible.

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) 41 min Mugwump 173,715
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 45 min deutscher Nationa... 116,641
New review critical of "Origins" 7 hr DanFromSmithville 17
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 9 hr Dogen 515
Need clarification on evolution 9 hr DanFromSmithville 5
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Wed Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Wed thewordofme 166
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••