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

Oxford, NC

#112236 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided detailed information on how the NWT was produced.
Your denialism is dishonest.
I haven't seen any JW statements from you regarding how the NWT was produced. I've cautioned you before that the info you get may not pass the sniff test if you don't go to the horse's mouth.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112237 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't even mention entropy.
Not specifically.

But the reference was there.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112238 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Interesting.

As folklore.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112239 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Hehehe.

Yes.

And most fundies are driven to frothing incoherence when they discover that unbelievers tend to be better-versed in their Bible than they are.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112240 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Pick one at friggin' random, you halfwit.

I'll take it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112241 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If natural processes tear down, then why is there thing instead of nothing?
Why is Everest growing rather than shrinking?
the SLoT wins eventually, but we are an energy positive system.
The whole universe has been built up from nothing but energy and hydrogen (and a little He). Seems like the overwhelming probability is to built up!
I hadn't considered how much more complex Everest gets as it grows, but then I think the Marianas Trench is rather impressive too. On a localized basis near the end of WWII, didn't Hiroshima briefly become a rather significant energy positive system? On the other hand, over a much longer time period and under intelligent influence it had been built up from nothing to a substantial city also as an energy positive system. Energy positive is like a box of chocolates. Knowing the probabilities involved, you only know statistically what you're going to get over the long haul.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#112242 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Then by that criteria a-lot of the Bible is untrue, and ESPECIALLY the Gospels. Well, I agreed with Dr. Ehrman years ago with his claim that the actual authors of the Gospels were unknown.

Counterfeit Gospels....wow
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112243 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"complexity"?
What is "complexity" in scientific terms?
Lacking simplicity, which of course means it's relative isn't it?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#112244 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1. Note an unspecified number of years ago for creating the heavens and the earth.
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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112245 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So evolution is certain.
Population genetics do change over time.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112246 Mar 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Define "tear down."
Your argument is that life of any kind is impossible. At least, that's the logical outcome. Perhaps you should learn how logic works. I needn't waste my time showing you how this result necessarily arises, because if there's one thing we know, it's that valid logic has no place in your universe.
If you can't provide an example of valid logic, so be it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112247 Mar 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That implies an intended or desired state of being. Until intent can be demonstrated regarding life arising, your definition is meaningless.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that alone won't make it so.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112248 Mar 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask about the statistical likelihood of someone asserting God as an explanation. Go back, re-read the question, and then show your work, as we now know you're just blurting things out and give no thought to the meaning of the words you say. Why don't you care if what you say is true?
Here's your question,

"And what is the statistical likelihood of God being the cause of, or explanation for, anything? Round to the nearest thousand, if necessary."

Here's my work,

The highest probability for anything is 100%. Since this is only one tenth of 1,000, rounding any likelihood, from zero to 100%, to the nearest thousand will always be zero.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112249 Mar 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, there's your argument in a nutshell, isn't it? When Genesis is at odds with the available physical data, why go there? You prefer to simply fall back on Heb 11:1 and make it unseen - and that way the Bible only "appears" to be in error...?
MIND YOUR 9TH COMMANDMENT, KAB.
Your argument, not mine. Genesis is not at odds with physical data. Poor choice of translation makes it appear to be at odds.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112250 Mar 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
So....it seems we have established that mankind first showed up on earth around 200,000 years ago thereby totally destroying the Biblical story of Adam and Eve as written in the Bible.
Any nays to record here???
What was the confirming data for that? Short of that I must respectfully remain a nay.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112251 Mar 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on what you are comparing the complexity to, as well as what you are defining as "complex." You do know that complex is a relative and subjective term, correct?
Which is more complex? The iPhone or the desktop IBM clone computer?
Dare you to try to answer that.
Yes I do know complexity is relative. Therefore, relative to the relative complexity of the two products, relative to what?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112252 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why aren't you providing specific points of confirmed conflict between the two chapters? Such failure to perform is indicative of inability.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112253 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
The following appears to be the quote to which you refer,

"and a 6,000 year old creation is apparently the way you choose to understand it."

Note it is me making a statement about someone else's position regarding a 6,000 year old creation. It is not a statement of my position.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112254 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Where shall we begin?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#112255 Mar 16, 2013
“(Barbara Bradley )Hagerty (of NPR) asked Dennis Venema, a professor of biology at Trinity Western University, if all humans descended from Adam and Eve.“That would be against all the genomics evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all,” Venema said. He explained that there is simply too much genetic diversity among human beings than would be possible with an original reproducing pair. Venema affirmed the standard evolutionary line of argument and explained that, in Hagerty’s words,“modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population - long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm...

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Blitzking 132,150
How would creationists explain... 1 hr Hidingfromyou 297
Genetic entropy 6 hr Discord 159
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 8 hr Wally West 3
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 14 hr The Dude 466
Science News (Sep '13) 15 hr positronium 2,941
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) Wed IAMIOOWAN 516
More from around the web