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

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

There are 170078 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

#112276 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Easy for you to state. Now provide genetic data confirming your point. The age-of-universe data, by itself, is non-sequitur.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112277 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly the same way that you may be in a hermetically sealed, vibration isolated, soundproof room and not know what's taking place outside the window.
You mean a Kingdom Hall?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112278 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Entropy can be mentioned incorrectly, so in general, mentioning a word does not define it. However, if mentioned correctly, a word's usage can be a strong indication of at least one of its possible meanings.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112279 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>On that point, you are at best mistaken.
At worst, untruthful.
That would be best established by your provision of an ongoing body of inerrant Bible content related data. A journey of a thousand such points begins with one. The ball is in your court.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112280 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do know complexity is relative. Therefore, relative to the relative complexity of the two products, relative to what?
Answer the question:

Which is more complex? The iPhone or the desktop IBM clone computer?

Then you just might learn something.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112281 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I accounted for this in my original post.
remember?
Just clarify this quote from your original post, and we'll be all set, since it's the statement I found questionable.

"observed outcome determines the probability, not the other way around"
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112282 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm, lemme look.
Oh, yes: "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth."
Translation: "Poof Daddy blumber ibble wikke urble bafiby."
Are you trying to be serious?
Better to not post and appear at a loss than to let fingers fly and remove all doubt.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112283 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you not lose site of the fact that ignorant, uneducated, biased men, with no skills in Latin or Hebrew, and with an axe to grind MIGHT not make the best translators.
I suggest that relatively unbiased people, working as a group, with experts in both languages as well as the cultural, political, social, and religious environment that the texts come from MIGHT do a better job.
Crazy, I know.
Just saying.
Still unwilling to directly compare the results on their own merits. Why is that do you think? Too scientific for you, letting data stand on its own?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112284 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am happy to start with what we have on the table.
As a reminder:
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 ...
By default I'll start with 1. I agree. You can select the next point to be addressed.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112285 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If I actually CLAIMED to have quoted you then I would have quoted you.
You are really not keeping up.
Now you have 2 posts to go back and reread.
Oh McDogen, you've done it even yet again! Here's the post where you claim to quote me and which you now claim not to have done,

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

BTW, You have been sufficiently neutralized. I'm not going back anymore to prove you wrong since it's already been done numerous times. Now the working baseline can and will be that, unless you state something accepted by both sides, you are incorrect unless you specifically and directly prove otherwise.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112286 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Pick one at friggin' random, you halfwit.
I'll take it.
Purported error: Bible calls bats birds or fowl.
Hebrew word used also means flying creature. Now the whole list of 72,000 is suspect until an error is confirmed after scrutiny. I've met my responsibility. The ball's in your court.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112287 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I know witnesses subscribe to the day-age theory, but the story is definitely talking about 24 hour days.
So you're OK with creation of Adam and Eve 200,000 years ago?? And down the line cohabiting with Neanderthals??
Have you had your DNA checked to see how much Neanderthal genes/blood you carry?? We all do, you know.
You didn't address Gen. 1:1. No and No. Don't we all carry chimp genes too and perhaps even worm genes? I think all living things carry the same bases and basic DNA structure too.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112288 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I've provided Bible quotes and related background info which has withstood scrutiny and confirms everything requested of me regarding Bible content.

It frightens me a bit that you actually may believe that.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> It's been made quite clear I know much more about science than you, although I realize that's not saying much.

Now that I recognize as a joke. HaHa, it is to laugh.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112289 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have provided insufficient info to determine with certainty.

That is all I am saying.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112290 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That would have been a lie. I won't do that. I leave all of that to your side which has no such qualms, as you just demonstrated.

It would have been your first foray into a larger world of truth. But you are so blinded you cannot tell truth from lies.


When the world and I were young,
Just yesterday.
Life was such a simple game,
A child could play.
It was easy then to tell right from wrong.
Easy then to tell weak from strong.
When a man should stand and fight,
Or just go along.
But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.
I remember when the answers seemed so clear
We had never lived with doubt or tasted fear.
It was easy then to tell truth from lies
Selling out from compromise
Who to love and who to hate,
The foolish from the wise.
But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.
It was easy then to know what was fair
When to keep and when to share.
How much to protect your heart
And how much to care.
But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light.
Today there is no black or white,
Only shades of gray.
Only shades of gray.

By Barry Mann and Cyntha Weil
www.elyrics.net/read/m/monkees-lyrics/shades-...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112291 Mar 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You demonstrate accuracy by presenting positive evidence. We don't convict someone based on their inability to prove themselves innocent, yet your logic would require exactly that. You begin with a premise (the Bible is important and true), look for reasons to accept it (some stuff in the Bible has been proven true), and then dismiss all reasons to not accept it (if it appears contradictory, we just don't know well enough to accept that contradiction as conclusive). Then, you try to suppose that as long as nobody can prove anything in it wrong (by your own unrealistic and intellectually dishonest standards), that demonstrates that it's true. Well, that's not how it works.
I make claim X. If you can't disprove it, and nobody can disprove it, does that make it true? What if someone has determined me, using your ADMITTEDLY SUBJECTIVE STANDARD, to be a reliable source, and I make claim X? If you can't disprove it, and nobody can disprove it, is it true then? No. That doesn't demonstrate that it's true, either.
The only thing that demonstrates that claim X is true is empirical evidence that claim X is true. Not "but SO-AND-SO said it!" That is evidence for children who still think that mom and dad have all the answers and know everything. Maybe you haven't gotten past that intellectual stage, but most of us have. Maybe, someday, you'll graduate to that level. Won't that just be neato? Yeah, it will, if it ever happens. But, you're dead-set against learning or intellectual growth, so I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Don't be so pessimistic. There's still hope. Thanks to you I just learned that the Bible has to be proven guilty to be convicted (i.e., presumption of innocence).

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112292 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly the same way that you may be in a hermetically sealed, vibration isolated, soundproof room and not know what's taking place outside the window.

John 3:20
Job 42:2
Jeremiah 32:17
Job 28:24
Matthew 10:30
Psalm 139:4

Now I don't know what sacrilegious/blasphemous translations of these verses the NWT has, but if you look these up in a real bible you will get my point.


I am glad my god is not as clueless as yours.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112293 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy for you to state. Now provide genetic data confirming your point. The age-of-universe data, by itself, is non-sequitur.

If you don't understand an example and cannot distinugish it from a non-sequitur then you are beyond help.

If you would like to look up the age of the universe you are welcome to do so, but as it has already served as an example that is not necessary.

My point was to refute your (scientifically ignorant) "point".

Mission accomplished.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112294 Mar 17, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean a Kingdom Hall?

Those are information/knowledge free zones.

Do you find it disturbing that KAB is using us for "credit" with his cult to be redeemed on his monthly reports for gods attaboys?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112295 Mar 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I misunderstood your answer's wording. My point in suggesting you round to the nearest thousand is that you'd present the likelihood as a ratio rather than a percentage. 1:X, not X%. As a percentage OR as a ratio, what is the statistical likelihood that God is the actual cause of, or explanation for, anything?
That depends directly on whether God exists or not. What say you?

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) 1 hr candlesmell 95,413
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 1,873
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 17
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 7 hr Dogen 116
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 7 hr Dogen 268
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 15 hr 15th Dalai Lama 16
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Jun 20 Rose_NoHo 106