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

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

There are 164926 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

United States

#112417 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you cannot understand that its basically impossible for eight people to repopulate the earth in three separate "clades" that never mix, which is what the Neanderthal and Denisovan finds require.
Think before you respond
Your assertion is wrong. There, we're data even. Think to provide some when you respond.
KAB

United States

#112418 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that someone powerful enough to create the universe could do so in any way that suited him without human limitations. Common design elements are just that, a product of human limitation.
I agree that the creator could create any way he wanted. You seem to want to restrict the options available to him.
KAB

United States

#112419 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the Watchtower was in error many times in the past, are you obligated to believe that all the current teachings are Godís truth?
The information for Job's assertion comes from the existing knowledge of the time.
I did not say exactly 600 b.c., now did I. That is why you didn't quote me.
Some of the book could have been written as much a 300 years earlier (though not likely) but the last additions to the book were not till 500 b.c. or after.
I understood your 600 b.c. reference to be approximate and unconfirmed even in its approximate form.
KAB

United States

#112420 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it can be said very clearly that you've never read 'the Bible'.
Nor has anyone else alive.
In fact,**ALL** the Christian religions and each sect of Christianity (including your own) is based upon an errant copy, of a copy, of edits of a translation several times over of the original.
Which itself was written by men.....
....taken from an oral tradition that likely spanned millenia.
Have you ever played "telegraph'?
More importantly than playing the game, I always note lack of data in a post, and that renders the post worthless.
KAB

United States

#112421 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhh.... Yeah, they are. And, therefore, it's not inerrant.
We have agreement. At least most copies of the Bible are not inerrant.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112422 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have agreement. At least most copies of the Bible are not inerrant.
And just how would you tell which are and which aren't?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112423 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
More importantly than playing the game, I always note lack of data in a post, and that renders the post worthless.
But I just agreed with what YOU observed when you said:
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the Bible should be held accountable point by point.
My criterion for deciding the Bible is not infallible is for an error to be found in the original content as best it can be determined. To be clear, errors introduced in copies are not errors in "the Bible".
I then FURTHER observed:
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it can be said very clearly that you've never read 'the Bible'.

Nor has anyone else alive.

In fact,**ALL** the Christian religions and each sect of Christianity (including your own) is based upon an errant copy, of a copy, of edits of a translation several times over of the original.

Which itself was written by men.....
....taken from an oral tradition that likely spanned millenia.
What part of the above do you have a problem with?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112424 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's certain you're not an engineer since you don't understand/accept use of common design elements across various designs.
Common design in engineering is only used for common utility purposes, you don't build a bridge using a vertical design like a building, idiot.
KAB

United States

#112425 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And just how would you tell which are and which aren't?
In general, the best that can be done is to compare to the oldest available manuscripts.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112426 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the Bible should be held accountable point by point.
My criterion for deciding the Bible is not infallible is for an error to be found in the original content as best it can be determined. To be clear, errors introduced in copies are not errors in "the Bible".

But Almighty God would not allow ERRORS into his bible, now would he?

You keep lowering the bar but you still can't seem to ever make it over.
KAB

United States

#112427 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
But I just agreed with what YOU observed when you said:
<quoted text>
I then FURTHER observed:
<quoted text>
What part of the above do you have a problem with?
We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are errant.
KAB

United States

#112428 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Common design in engineering is only used for common utility purposes, you don't build a bridge using a vertical design like a building, idiot.
Is your position that no bridge and building have any common design elements?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112429 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, the best that can be done is to compare to the oldest available manuscripts.
Without any way of knowing if they, themselves contained errors.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112430 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are errant.
We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are inerrant.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112431 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your position that no bridge and building have any common design elements?
Only things that serve the exact same purpose and so long as they are efficient as such. That is why your "common design" excuse falls apart.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112432 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it can be said very clearly that you've never read 'the Bible'.
Nor has anyone else alive.
In fact,**ALL** the Christian religions and each sect of Christianity (including your own) is based upon an errant copy, of a copy, of edits of a translation several times over of the original.
Which itself was written by men.....
....taken from an oral tradition that likely spanned millenia.
Have you ever played "telegraph'?

Amen.

One of the most interesting things about the bible is how it does not closely correlate with the beliefs and practices of early Christian groups, even the direct followers of Jesus!

Marcus Borg's book "Speaking Christian" is a very interesting book in that he puts a lot of Christian terms back into historic context. Wow. What a difference from how these words are used by Christians today!

A few examples:

"Redemption: now narrowly understood as Jesus saving us from sins so we can go to heaven, but inthe Bible it refers to being set free from slavery.

Savior: now refers to Jesus as the one who saves us from our sins, but in the Bible it has a rich and wonderful variety of meanings having nothing to do with the afterlife.

Sacrifice: now refers to Jesusís death on the crossas payment for our sins, but in the Bible it is neverabout substitutionary payment for sin."

http://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Christian-Powe...

Even KAB would enjoy portions of it (but would loath other parts).

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112433 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assertion is wrong. There, we're data even. Think to provide some when you respond.

No, Chimney is dead-on-balls-accurate in his understanding of the genetic issue at hand here.

You would need people who only represent one clade AND to have their offspring NEVER interbreed with the others!!!!

You see the problem?



Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you cannot understand that its basically impossible for eight people to repopulate the earth in three separate "clades" that never mix, which is what the Neanderthal and Denisovan finds require.
Think before you respond

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112434 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the creator could create any way he wanted. You seem to want to restrict the options available to him.

Science only seeks to find what happened and why. From what we know your mythology is simply not possible.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112435 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood your 600 b.c. reference to be approximate and unconfirmed even in its approximate form.

According to the research that has been done that is the approximate date. Of course that more or less the mid point of a range from different scholars.

If you want to pretend it is older that is fine but don't call it "confirmed". Keep the pretend play to yourself and we don't have an issue.

It is funny that you are so concerned about your own ego and not getting cornered that you only wimpily defend the bible.

How is your report to your masters going? Get any converts today?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112436 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
More importantly than playing the game, I always note lack of data in a post, and that renders the post worthless.

Dataless assertion.

You just don't even want to try to defend the bible. Not if there is risk to your ego.


Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it can be said very clearly that you've never read 'the Bible'.
Nor has anyone else alive.
In fact,**ALL** the Christian religions and each sect of Christianity (including your own) is based upon an errant copy, of a copy, of edits of a translation several times over of the original.
Which itself was written by men.....
....taken from an oral tradition that likely spanned millenia.
Have you ever played "telegraph'?

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 6 hr Frindly 3,243
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 39
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr Frindly 83,830
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 18 hr MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web