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

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

There are 151418 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112269 Mar 17, 2013
I seem to have quoted just a tad more than I intended.

very sorry.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112270 Mar 17, 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?
No. I've provided Bible quotes and related background info which has withstood scrutiny and confirms everything requested of me regarding Bible content. It's been made quite clear I know much more about science than you, although I realize that's not saying much.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112271 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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)?
You have provided insufficient info to determine with certainty.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112272 Mar 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit long winded, don't you think? You could have just stopped after the third word, after all.
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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112273 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.
But KAB, you routinely edit, mentally rearrange or ignore whole verses when they are proven to be inconsistent with physical evidence.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112274 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Okay.
How did your deity not know what Eve was going to do?
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.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112275 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Forensics.
With what specific shall we begin?
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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min Patrick 16,111
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min Blitzking 201,337
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 25 min DanFromSmithville 40,634
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr Reno Hoock 152
LUCA and more REAL science 15 hr MIDutch 1
Dinosaurs and the Catholic Church 15 hr MIDutch 1
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 16 hr MIDutch 12
More from around the web