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

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

There are 166302 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

Mars

#112477 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. You're starting to see the light.

Ah,... the blind witnessing as to others seeing the light.

Interesting.

Anyhoot, do you also agree there might have been (horrors) errors even in the originals?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112478 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. There, we're data even.

Some people also use reason and logic....

oh,... nevermind.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112479 Mar 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

He will claim the answer is yes. But the real answer is no.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112480 Mar 20, 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.

Since you provided not even one sample of confirming data and you've established yourself as an unreliable source and since you have not even established your "reliable source" as being reliable, I'll consider your assertion as probably not so.

You can't even win when you make the rules. That should tell you something.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112481 Mar 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Soiled?

I prefer to think of it as "broken in". ;)

More seriously, one of the things that we know about oral traditions is that while the details may change the the essence (meaning) of the stories typically survive, though in exaggerated form.

So bad floods become global floods.

Religious holy men become prophets, who become sons of man, then sons of god.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112482 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I have ever stated that the time of the writing of Job has been confirmed. I don't tend to do such things. It's your side that has the chronic bad habit of treating as confirmed that which is not, but you're starting to show some signs of recognition/acknowledgement of what you have tended to treat as confirmed but isn't.

Sorry bud, but you suggested that Job proved that the Hebrews knew something (vault under northern sky,... which still isn't accurate) no one else did.
KAB

United States

#112483 Mar 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, get real with some confirming data for your assertions. "Confirmation" and "real" are rather closely realated, don't you think?
KAB

United States

#112484 Mar 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Confirmation, earliest sources, demonstrated reliable, etc., etc., blah, blah, yammer, yammer...
The basal irony never fades. Just like every other version of Bible, KAB's NWT is fundamentally and irrevocably bound to the product that was canonized by the catholic councils. I hear you have a new Pope, KAB. Time to brush up on your Spanish?
To the extent possible, the NWT draws on info which predates the Catholic councils. That includes the canon itself.
KAB

United States

#112485 Mar 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bonus"?
In addition to the point(s) I've already scored?
How is illumininating for you an obvious double negative that you failed to see a fallacy?
I saw the double negative and properly responded to it. You responded with a logical fallacy. Something which is not confirmed may still be so. Isn't that so? Specifically, not confirmed to be inerrant could still be inerrant, couldn't it?
KAB

United States

#112486 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So now it's no longer about efficiency but personal preference? That makes your god look even less intelligent. Imagine an engineer decides to place a door in place of a bridge pillar and just states "I like it there, so that's what goes there."
My God didn't substitute a door for a bridge pillar. You did.
KAB

United States

#112487 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YHWH??? Give me a break. He can't even keep his translations straight. What makes you think he could do any better with the oral version?
What oral version? The presumed one yet to be confirmed?
KAB

United States

#112488 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Objection: assuming facts not in evidence; namely, existence of God and the subsequent influence of said God.
I understand. You expect your assertions to be accepted as correct but won't provide confirming data, but don't accept the assertion that God exists. One could hardly be more objective than that!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112489 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To the extent possible, the NWT draws on info which predates the Catholic councils. That includes the canon itself.
And yet - the same books, chapters and verses. If I say look up Matt. 7:3 you will read essentially the same thing regardless of the version or edition (not that you actually abide by Matt. 7:3, of course). For all of your protestations of veracity and earliest confirmed sources, all the NWT actually accomplishes is to reword the texts of the Catholic Bible to suit your denomination. So again, are you going to brush up on your Spanish to better understand your new Pope?
KAB

United States

#112490 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 15 feet of nerve more or less intelligent/efficient that 3 inches of nerve when connecting the brain to something 3 inches away from the brain?
Insufficient info for a valid engineering assessment, but then you are so not technically saavy.
KAB

United States

#112491 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misrepresenting the truth here, of course.
You seem to delight in wickedness. Why is that?
Neither verses suggest that the Bible will be watered down.
Neither these verses nor any others suggest that the bible is perfect.
Neither these verses nor any others suggest that the bible even exists or will ever exist.
Also, no verse in the NT suggests God should be called Yahwah just as no verse in the entire bible suggests that God should be called Jehovah.
Aside from the misrepresenting the truth point, you are correct.
KAB

United States

#112492 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah,... the blind witnessing as to others seeing the light.
Interesting.
Anyhoot, do you also agree there might have been (horrors) errors even in the originals?
If YHWH exists then I presently have no reason to think there would have been errors in the originals.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112493 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What oral version? The presumed one yet to be confirmed?
Oh? I suppose you figure your god simply dictated the entire OT to some dude scribbling on chunks of papyrus.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112494 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Insufficient info for a valid engineering assessment, but then you are so not technically saavy.
It was sufficient. You're merely dodging the question.
KAB

United States

#112495 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people also use reason and logic....
oh,... nevermind.
Reason and logic constitute part of that body of "data" accepted by both sides, right?
KAB

United States

#112496 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry bud, but you suggested that Job proved that the Hebrews knew something (vault under northern sky,... which still isn't accurate) no one else did.
Taken at face value Job does suggest knowledge no one else had except that the northern sky thing isn't the critical factor, but then you know that.

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) 13 min Samuel Patre 87,244
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 14 hr knows 1,824
What's your religion? Sat Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Sat superwilly 5,811
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,360
More from around the web