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

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

There are 162479 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

#112497 Mar 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You don't appear to understand the history of chapter and verse numbering of the Bible.
KAB

United States

#112498 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? I suppose you figure your god simply dictated the entire OT to some dude scribbling on chunks of papyrus.
Hey, he wrote the original ten commandments himself.
KAB

United States

#112499 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It was sufficient. You're merely dodging the question.
So are you, given that answering it successfully would have relieved you from making yet another dataless assertion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112500 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, he wrote the original ten commandments himself.
Sure he did.

A dataless assertion, KAB?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112501 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you, given that answering it successfully would have relieved you from making yet another dataless assertion.
The question wasn't directed to me but to you. However...

Having engineered many things over more years than I care to think about, with all other parameters being equal, a 15 foot connection over a 3 inch connection would never be considered a good engineering practice as it allows for more points of failure without any offsetting benefit.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112502 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you won't provide confirmation of that. You probably can't even locate it.

As you agreed that no originals exist and have acknowledged that errors could have occurred prior to the oldest existent copies it would seem that you are already on board. You trying to jump off a moving train?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112503 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you, given that answering it successfully would have relieved you from making yet another dataless assertion.

Blankly declaring something to be a dataless assertion is, in itself, a dataless assertion.

How often have I razzed you about doing this?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112504 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, he wrote the original ten commandments himself.

Show them to me. Or is this a dataless assertion.

Does you cult obey the all the commandments?

Or do they sort of skip over one of them?(actually they skip over a few of them but that is a story for another day).

Right now we are looking for just one commandment that the JWs do not observe.

Hint:
http://www.reasoningwithjehovahswitnesses.com...
KAB

United States

#112505 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure he did.
A dataless assertion, KAB?
Yes it is, aside from the record in a demonstrated reliable source.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112506 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't appear to understand the history of chapter and verse numbering of the Bible.

Hiding again behind a moot point to avoid the real point?

Cannot you respond to the words of ChromiuMan?



ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112507 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Seems if the verse is wrong then it is wrong. It hangs below the southern or equatorial sky just as much as the northern. So the verse is wrong and you just demonstrated another Error in the bible. Thanks for the help, but we don't need any.

Taken at face value it appears that Job was written long after the nature of the earth being round was known.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112508 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Reason and logic constitute part of that body of "data" accepted by both sides, right?

Clearly not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112509 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, aside from the record in a demonstrated reliable source.
That has not been demonstrated.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112510 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If YHWH exists then I presently have no reason to think there would have been errors in the originals.

Really? How does your logic run.

Here is mine:
The only books of the bible who's authorship is known are some of the books attributed to Paul (who was not taking dictation from God).

Nothing in the bible indicates it was dictated or written in the 1st person by God. It does not have "Written By God" on the cover nor on the title page.

The bible does not claim it is error free.

Most of the books of the bible were written well after the events (real or imagined) that they speak about.


You sure about there being no errors in the originals?

This is not even to mention that the JWs forged "Jehovah" into the New Testament.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112511 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the misrepresenting the truth point, you are correct.

I like it when you get rattled enough to make grammatical errors.


And I like to rub your nose in your dataless response to my post.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112512 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What oral version? The presumed one yet to be confirmed?

So you are saying that the Gospels were written the day after the events they narrate by 1st person, eye witnesses?
KAB

United States

#112513 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The question wasn't directed to me but to you. However...
Having engineered many things over more years than I care to think about, with all other parameters being equal, a 15 foot connection over a 3 inch connection would never be considered a good engineering practice as it allows for more points of failure without any offsetting benefit.
Does "all other parameters being equal" mean ignoring everything except what is about to be provided, in which case anything provided is pre-defined as correct unless it is unrealizable?
KAB

United States

#112514 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As you agreed that no originals exist and have acknowledged that errors could have occurred prior to the oldest existent copies it would seem that you are already on board. You trying to jump off a moving train?
Not unless "could" means "did".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112515 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

"not confirmed to be inerrant could still be inerrant"

--=/=-

Dropping out the double negative on one side of the equation leaves us with

'confirmed to be errant could still be inerrant'

You really seem rattled today.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112516 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "all other parameters being equal" mean ignoring everything except what is about to be provided, in which case anything provided is pre-defined as correct unless it is unrealizable?
It means what it says. If you can't counter me then STFU. I don't need your idiotic word salad.

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) 11 min 15th Dalai Lama 221,914
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr John 761
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr John 32,170
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 11 hr Science 436
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Science 76,945
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 15 hr Dogen 4,309
News Intelligent Design Action Network Meeting Sat The FACTory 1
More from around the web