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

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

There are 162036 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

Wilson, NC

#112211 Mar 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You claim a supernatural origin for the Universe.
Data, please.
What is supernatural about someone designing and producing something (Isaiah 40:26)?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112212 Mar 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Beats the sh!t outta me.
Whadda you got?
I have nothing you are prepared to accept.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112213 Mar 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I think you misunderstand "entropy".
It's kinda on the upswing.
I didn't even mention entropy.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112214 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with the quote.
Let's examine the quote logically, objectively, and scientifically.

"Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair)."

That's research on many (not ALL) finds answers ranging from 2 million to 60,000. Is it not logically, objectively, and scientifically plausible that additional research on more genes could find answers extending this range? Thus, more recent bottlenecks is not disproved. There you have what's logically, objectively, and scientifically wrong with the quote. I didn't expect you to detect it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112215 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are over analyzing. Observation = observed outcome in my previous statement.
<quoted text>
You're catching up.
Some probabilities can be determined by observed characteristics/parameters (observation) without any trials being conducted and, thus, without requiring observed outcomes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112216 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
An ever growing list of failures to disprove is very helpful, don't you think? How do you propose confirming that a document is reliable? I for one am hoping evidence and reason win!

Not really. Your failures have never been disproved.

Anyhoot, a confirmed reliable source should not be self contradictory, for example it should not retell the same story in two consecutive chapters and have them conflict.

A confirmed reliable source should not disagree with science.

A confirmed reliable source should match known history.

A confirmed reliable source should not have simple math errors.

A confirmed reliable source should be verifiable.

A confirmed reliable source should be testable.

A confirmed reliable source should be CONFIRMED TO BE RELIABLE.

A confirmed reliable source should be translated by the best trained professionals and re-verified to be confirmed reliable in the new language.

A confirmed reliable source should not be hacked from stolen sources by a bunch of guys who don't even know the source languages and have an agenda they are trying to support.

Copies of a confirmed reliable source should be verified against the original.

Ideally a confirmed reliable source should have known authorship.

A confirmed reliable source should be source to objectivity not opinion and bias.

Good luck finding one.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112217 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1. Note an unspecified number of years ago for creating the heavens and the earth.

You were the one who just quoted the 6000 figure.

But researchers (plural) have looked at a, admittedly unconfirmed and unreliable, source and calculated that the universe came into being in around 4,000 b.c.

Based on that, admittedly unconfirmed and unreliable, source
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112218 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Going point by point vivisects the context. The context is always important.
You problem is just denialism. You don't want to admit that the passages in question are intended as poetry and metaphor.
Why didn't the editors of genesis simply combine the creation stories?
Why does god seem to practice obfuscation in these passages instead of clarity?
Why is there clarity in a "translation" by a small group of relatively uneducated people with a specific religious agenda and not in a multitude of translations by linguistic experts, professional translators, and experts on the cultures that produced the original writings?
Hebrews 4:12 (MF's favorite) and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
When entering a realm with spiritual significance what could be the motives of the linguistic experts, professional translators, and cultural experts. In pondering the possibilities, I suggest you not lose sight of the fact that they are human. Are you unfamiliar with the reality of conflicting expert witnesses in a courtroom setting? The course of wisdom is to evaluate the message, not the messengers!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112219 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you propose that a document's reliability be demonstrated?

That it's authors are who the document claims they are.

That it was written at the time the document says it was written.

That the document was written by objective persons who witnessed the events they describe.

That the document be internally consistent (internal validity).

That the document be externally consistent (external validity).

That the document be measured or calibrate against a known standard or against itself (Criterion validity).

That the document be consistent with other sources documenting the same events (Concurrent validity).

That the document make accurate predictions (predictive validity).

That the document be logical or rational (Content validity).

That the document measure up to its claims (Construct validity).

That things the document claims are related are actually related (Convergent validity).

That things that the document claims are unrelated are actually unrelated (Discriminant validity).

That is a start. After that we can check for:

Face Validity
Definition of Reliability
Test–Retest Reliability
Reproducibility
Replication Study
Interrater Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112220 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A fraud is something purporting to be what it isn't. For example, you purporting to be knowledgeable about the Bible when you aren't.

So you would be a fraud for the exact same reason.

Not to mention your being a fraud by purporting to be knowledgeable about science when you aren't.

Did I get the concept right?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112221 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, have facts backwards again.
1. To demonstrate a source to be reliable you have to demonstrate that it is reliable. i.e. you cannot just claim it is reliable.
2. The bible has over 72,000 known errors in it. These errors fall into a wide variety of types. To demonstrate that you demonstrated reliable source is a demonstrated reliable source you need to have answers for all 72,000 + known errors.
That is the responsibility of the claimant, not of anyone else.
3. Different bible translations have different numbers of errors. Yours seems to have a lot more than most.
Here is a list of just a few errors specific to the NWT. NOTE: this is NOT a comprehensive list.
The Greek word “en” meaning “in” is paraphrased as “in union with” to support the Watchtower teaching that Christians support the cause of Christ, but do not have Christ dwelling within them.
Matthew 10:32 (twice)
Luke 12:8 (twice)
John 6:56; 10:38; 14:10 (three times); 14:11 (twice); 14:20 (three times); 15:4 (three times); 15:5 (twice); 15:6; 15:7; 17:21 (Three times); 17:26
Romans 8:1; 8:2; 8:10; 12:5; 16:7;
1 Corinthians 1:2; 1:30; 15:18; 16:24
2 Corinthians 5:17; 12:2; 13:5
Galatians 1:22; 2:4; 2:20; 3:28; 5:10
Ephesians 1:1; 1:3; 1:4; 1:11; 2:6; 2:7; 2:10; 2:13; 2:15; 2:21; 2:22; 3:6; 6:1
Philippians 1:1; 3:9; 4:21
Colossians 1:27; 1:28; 2:6; 3:3
2 Timothy 1:1; 2:10; 3:15
Philemon :23
1 Peter 5:10; 5:14
1 John 1:5; 2:5; 2:6; 2:24; 2:27; 2:28; 3:6; 3:24 (three times)
1 John 4:4 (twice). 4:13 (twice); 4:15 (twice); 4:16 (twice); 5:20
Revelation 14:13
The Greek word “kolasis” is translated “cutting-off” instead of “punishment” to support the Watchtower’s belief in annihilation and the rejection of an eternal place of torment called “hell.”
Matthew 25:46
The Greek words “kai theos en ho logos” are mistranslated as “the Word was a god,” instead of “the Word was God.” This is a distortion of the text as the word “a” is not in the Greek, but was added by the New World Translators to make the Word (Jesus)“a” second “god” who is separate from God the Father.
John 1:1
The Greek words “ego eimi” meaning “I am” are mistranslated as “I have been” to obscure the connection between Jesus being the "I Am" Jehovah God of Exodus 3:14.
John 8:58
The word “me” is omitted in “ask Me anything” to support the Watchtower claim that Jesus is not worthy to receive prayer.
John 14:14
The Greek word “ginoskosin” meaning “to know, intimately” is mistranslated as “taking in knowledge of” to support the Watchtower doctrine that accurate knowledge is necessary for eternal life. Changing this translation from “know You”(as all other Bible translations have it) to “taking in knowledge of You” shifts the focus from a personal relationship with God to a mere intellectual study of God to gain eternal life.
John 17:3
The English word “son” in “blood of his own [son]” is added in brackets without any support in the Greek text. This demonstrates the length that the Watchtower goes to deny that Jesus is the God who shed His own blood for us.
Acts 20:28
The Greek words “pneumaton” and “pneumas” meaning “spirits” is mistranslated as “spiritual life” and “spiritual lives” to fit with the Watchtower doctrine that denies the existence of the human “spirit” that lives on past death.
Hebrews 12:9, 23
The Watchtower even changed the Greek text of their translation into the modern Greek language to disagree with the Greek in their Kingdom Interlinear Translation!
http://4jehovah.org/jehovahs-witness-nwt-erro...
Again this is ONLY a SAMPLE of the errors specific to the NWT and all are from the NT and all changed due to theological consideration.
Where are the claimants of the 72,000 errors when it's time to shoulder their responsibility? Beyond that, which error claim do you want addressed first?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112222 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is supernatural about someone designing and producing something (Isaiah 40:26)?

Nothing as long as you don't commit a post hoc ergo propter hoc, or similar fallacy, in your claim.

I have rocks in my garden. Are they designed or the result of natural forces (prior to being put through a rock crusher, of course)?


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112223 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have nothing you are prepared to accept.

A bit long winded, don't you think? You could have just stopped after the third word, after all.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112224 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you acknowledge abiogenesis.
but how is it you don't recognize the content of my post as following from your post? I quoted what you said so you would have a harder time running from it. Not as hard as I assumed, however.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But heavier than air flight has occurred.
Evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
And abiogenesis has occurred.
Evidence:
Look in your mirror
If abiogenesis has not occurred then how do you explain yourself in the mirror?
----------
Go back and read you post if you have any questions.
If you did actually quote me as you falsely claim, I wouldn't have to go back and read my post, would I?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112225 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that your summary is what the Bible actually states. Try starting with just one point.
Okay.

How did your deity not know what Eve was going to do?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112226 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you propose that a document's reliability be demonstrated?
Forensics.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112227 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's examine the quote logically, objectively, and scientifically.
"Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair)."
That's research on many (not ALL) finds answers ranging from 2 million to 60,000. Is it not logically, objectively, and scientifically plausible that additional research on more genes could find answers extending this range? Thus, more recent bottlenecks is not disproved. There you have what's logically, objectively, and scientifically wrong with the quote. I didn't expect you to detect it.

No, that is not the way a range developed by this method works. Additional research does not extend the range, but rather reduces it.

In that you have no experience with science it is not surprising that you don't know that.

20 years or so ago the range for the age of the universe was between 10 and 20 billion years or so.

Currently that range is down to 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years. Future science will continue to limit that range.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112228 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't even mention entropy.

Defining entropy is not different than mentioning entropy.

Just as defining pi is not different from using the word. The definition is what the word means.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112229 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A fraud is something purporting to be what it isn't. For example, you purporting to be knowledgeable about the Bible when you aren't.
On that point, you are at best mistaken.

At worst, untruthful.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112230 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Some probabilities can be determined by observed characteristics/parameters (observation) without any trials being conducted and, thus, without requiring observed outcomes.

I accounted for this in my original post.

remember?

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) 17 min IB DaMann 75,173
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 2 hr Endofdays 517
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Eagle 12 - 169
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 3 hr Science 140
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 5 hr Science 265
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Nemesis 32,051
Evidence that no god exists 6 hr Nemesis 7
More from around the web