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

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

There are 163810 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112437 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have agreement. At least most copies of the Bible are not inerrant.

By your own standard none are inerrant. All versions of the bible contain errors of many types. Remember, your version of the bible was stolen from other sources with rewordings inserted. The claims of it using original sources was a lie. Not one you told, but certainly one told to you.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112438 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are errant.
You dont HAVE the earliest version of the Bible. ALL subsequent copies and translations of the book are inferior.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112439 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And just how would you tell which are and which aren't?

If the version was written to conform to his cult then it is up to snuff. All other versions aren't.

You got to really swallow the bait, the hook, the line, the sinker, the bobber, and about 50 ft. of line to be a JW.

All cults say their stuff is perfect. It is not hard to tear a rational hole in that, but it is hard to convict adherents who can rationalize anything.

Remember the Branch Davidians? There are still people that believe that was the theological perfection God intended and was fully backed by the bible.

Was that in Waco or Wacko?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112440 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, the best that can be done is to compare to the oldest available manuscripts.

And they all differ.

Nor are they all equal. Some earlier manuscripts clearly show more theological alteration than others found in different locations. Earlier is, in general better, but is no guarantee of accuracy, ESPECIALLY if some cult gets a hold of it and rewrites it for its own purposes?

What did the JW "translators" use the word Jehovah in the NT translation when the word (improperly rendered in any case) YHWH is not found in the N.T. in ANY manuscripts no matter what their date.

This is perpetuating a fraud.

But you will ignore this issue again, just like you ignore all the other flaws of your Cult and their lies.

How does your cult bible render John 8:44?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112441 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your position that no bridge and building have any common design elements?


Logic dictates that God can create however he wants and does not suffer from human constraints.
KAB

United States

#112442 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes he would (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) for use by those not sufficiently motivated to know (Mt. 7:7,8) the truth.
KAB

United States

#112443 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Without any way of knowing if they, themselves contained errors.
That's why I referred to it as the best that can be done. Hey, they could be error free.
KAB

United States

#112444 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are inerrant.
That is correct. You're starting to see the light.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112445 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Yes he would (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) for use by those not sufficiently motivated to know (Mt. 7:7,8) the truth.
But you're using references to an admittably inferior document.
KAB

United States

#112446 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No it doesn't. There, we're data even.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112447 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. There, we're data even.
Really? So then your "god" is inefficient and ignorant.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112448 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>That is correct. You're starting to see the light.
Note the double negative.

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have confirmation that the oldest copies are inerrant.

(Interpretation). "We have confirmation that the oldest copies are errant."

Damn, KAB. Spoonfed?!? Really?!?!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#112449 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If the version was written to conform to his cult then it is up to snuff. All other versions aren't.
Of course. I just wondered if he had the balls to admit it.
Dogen wrote:
You got to really swallow the bait, the hook, the line, the sinker, the bobber, and about 50 ft. of line to be a JW.
All cults say their stuff is perfect. It is not hard to tear a rational hole in that, but it is hard to convict adherents who can rationalize anything.
Remember the Branch Davidians? There are still people that believe that was the theological perfection God intended and was fully backed by the bible.
Was that in Waco or Wacko?
Yes.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#112450 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he would (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) for use by those not sufficiently motivated to know (Mt. 7:7,8) the truth.
What complete and utter bullshit. Well done.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#112451 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I referred to it as the best that can be done. Hey, they could be error free.
The likelihood of oral traditions being handed down from generation to generation for perhaps a thousand years or more to be free of changes, errors or corruption is virtually impossible.

But then, you've already shown how prone you are to delusion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#112452 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. You're starting to see the light.
At least one of us should. And it ain't you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112453 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".
You have made various excuses for the more minor errors such as bats are birds, some insects have 4 legs, pi = 3 etc.

But then there is the nonexistent Flood,
There are the inconsistent accounts in the Gospels.
There is the fact that the order of creation in Genesis is at odds with all empirical evidence. In fact there are two orders of creation given in Genesis that are not even consistent with each other!

So I ask you again. What kind of error would it have to be to lead you to the conclusion that the Bible is fallible? Is there ANY conceivable real world evidence or internal inconsistency in the Bible that could lead you there?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112454 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, the best that can be done is to compare to the oldest available manuscripts.
Yeah, that's what you keep saying - but why? Are you looking for the very first time a human wrote 2+2=5?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112455 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science only seeks to find what happened and why. From what we know your mythology is simply not possible.
Since you provided not even one sample of confirming data and you've established yourself as an unreliable source, I'll consider your assertion as probably not so.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112456 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you provided not even one sample of confirming data and you've established yourself as an unreliable source, I'll consider your assertion as probably not so.
You have virtually admitted -- by your refusal to respond -- that any copies from the original Bible (if there WAS one) is at least suspect for authenticity.

I put it to you then: Unless you are reading the "First Edition" of The Bible", which has been translated, and edited countless times, then are you not reading an inferior account?

Not to mention (as presented before) that even the ORIGINAL, WRITTEN account of the Bible, written down by uncounted, anonymous authors, was itself taken from an oral account of the original campfire tales of Bronze Age nomads, passed down for millenia (Old Testiment, THEN written down, and the New Testiment was written GENERATIONS apart and from a plethora of sources from the accounts that they suggest they were to related to, and often from 3rd party sources, and that the stories were translated, AGAIN translated, edited, for your account of "The Bible"?

YOUR Bible is SOILED.

With ALL THAT....YES. There **MAY** be a Divine Being that is accountable for everything we see and are.

E - V - I - D - E - N - C - E .

GET REAL.

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) 4 min replaytime 80,110
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 52 min nanoanomaly 32,612
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr ChromiuMan 222,784
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web