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

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

There are 143951 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.

“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

Oxford, 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112457 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.
Master of the obvious. I think most readers have noted the lack of data in your posts, KAB. But thanks for pointing it out.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112458 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112459 Mar 19, 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.
Hey KAB - relax. Allow me to field this one with your usual data filled and thoroughly insightful panache.

KAB

Oxford, NC

#112460 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You dont HAVE the earliest version of the Bible. ALL subsequent copies and translations of the book are inferior.
Of course, you won't provide confirmation of that. You probably can't even locate it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112461 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you won't provide confirmation of that. You probably can't even locate it.
Bubba...you have admitted such.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112462 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
We don't have any original Bible documents. Why would the original NT writers quote Hebrew scriptures and substitute a title for a personal name? It's not a fraud when one openly acknowledges and explains what has been done. One may not agree with what was done, but it's not a fraud. Those who call it such must have a non-objective agenda.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112463 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
John 8:44 (NWT)
"YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#112464 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have any original Bible documents.
Yup.

Enough said.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112465 Mar 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you won't provide confirmation of that. You probably can't even locate it.
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?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112466 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
But you're using references to an admittably inferior document.
That is unconfirmed, so it's not admittedly inferior.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112467 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So then your "god" is inefficient and ignorant.
So, if someone does something diferently from the way you would have it done, they are inefficient and ignorant? Knowing you as I do, I don't think that's such a good standard.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112468 Mar 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
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?!?!
Now, as a bonus, can you identify the fallacy you just committed?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min woodtick57 174,097
News Intelligent design 8 hr Critical Eye 25
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Critical Eye 20,904
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Sep 2 macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Sep 2 karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sep 2 dollarsbill 14
More from around the web