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

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 ... Full Story

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112573 Mar 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With GOD? Absolutely!!!<quoted text>No, It makes you look less intelligent because you have no clue concerning GOD!!<quoted text>For an engineer, that would be a flaw because a door won't support what a bridge pillar can, but for GOD it is just a matter of preference. He can make a door and balance the bridge on it if he wants too!
So, "intelligent design" becomes undetectable because absolutely anything, even things we deem horribly unintelligent and poorly designed, must, by definition, be considered "intelligently designed." In other words, you begin with the conclusion, and then declare that no matter the evidence, everything fits the conclusion. The perfection of the circularity of your argument is absolutely fantastic.
KAB

United States

#112574 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Please remember that.
Since it's easily confirmed correct, you can count on it.
KAB

United States

#112575 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence you cannot is provided below.
Doublespeak is your native language, to be sure. Do you speak English at all?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Maybe this will help. It's not a double negative. It's two single negatives, not confirmed and inerrant (i.e., not errant). Thus, it is not "not not confirmed = confirmed" and "not not errant = errant" which combined would be "confirmed errant". It is instead "not confirmed not errant". Thus, since it is not confirmed, it could be not errant. You are so not logically (an extension of technically) saavy. If this still doesn't register, ask a logic expert you trust.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112576 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't appear to understand the history of chapter and verse numbering of the Bible.
Really? I note that you conspicuously refer to and express reverence for oldest available sources, yet adhere lock-step with modern (JW) translations, medieval forms and Byzantine materials.
You don't appear to WANT to understand much of anything at all.
KAB

United States

#112577 Mar 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you draw together words that are completely unrelated into nonsensical compositions that you think resemble grammatically correct and literate sentences but in reality simply betray a complete and total lack of any subject matter you are sadly, attempting to, address.
I wonder if you will give and analyze a specific example? I think not since you can't.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112578 Mar 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With GOD? Absolutely!!!<quoted text>No, It makes you look less intelligent because you have no clue concerning GOD!!<quoted text>For an engineer, that would be a flaw because a door won't support what a bridge pillar can, but for GOD it is just a matter of preference. He can make a door and balance the bridge on it if he wants too!
You just twist what historical acounts you need to twist to justify a terribly flawed, unscientific, and biased philosophy!!

Damned right I plagiarized... sue me.
KAB

United States

#112579 Mar 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like the Gospels.
Written 30 years and later after the event.
And not by eyewitnesses.
I don't suppose we could prevail upon you to confirm the writership assertion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112580 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide just one point. One is all that's needed, right, if it withstands scrutiny? I suggest you make it what you consider one of the best.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I provide them to you on a daily basis and all I get in return is a song and dance.

Please defend just one point. One would be a start, right, if it withstands scrutiny? I suggest you make it what you consider one of the best.

Will you man up? Or will it be another KAB epic fail?

I have placed my bet.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112581 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as dataless as ever. You should check out cult on Webster's Online. Welcome to the club!

No answers
Same issues

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to you. You are a typical cultist in every way.
When you believe something, all the evidence points that way. But the evidence never points that way if you don't have the belief or a desire to believe.
There is not a cultist on the planet who does not think their religion is perfect, or nearly so, and can show you the evidence to "prove it".
The cult tactic it to show the potential brainwashee only snip-its of evidence that can (in absentia of larger reality) be added up only one way.
Once there is buy-in it is difficult to ever get them to see reality.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112582 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the two versions of the 10 commandments in the bible do not agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments...
Imagine my shock.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112583 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been in process constantly for a long time without a hitch.
Only for the delusional.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112584 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought. Your contribution was worthless for the purpose of the exercise.
So you can't dispute me. No surprise. Engineering is obviously not one of your talents. Among many other things.

Instead of breaking wind, why don't you give us your explanation as to why introducing additional and unnecessary potential points of failure without any benefit is a good engineering practice?

If you can.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112585 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I can think straight.
Dataless assertion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112586 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
He attempted to pose an engineering problem. That's the context of my response. So far, however, I have no reason to believe he or you are technically saavy about anything. For example, other than your long-ago assertion of mathematical prowess, I've never seen any significant mathematical content come forth from you, and you rarely seem to correctly understand anything of any technical nature.
Yet you cannot counter me. Why is that? Is it because your not so nearly 'technically savvy' and you like to think? You claim everyone else in incompetent in the subject but you can't even begin to address a basic engineering principle.

All you can do is dodge the issue, wuss.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112587 Mar 21, 2013
Of the various versions of the Ten Commandments I like to use the version that was supposedly carved in stone by God. That is the Exodus 34: 10-28 version. The modern interpretation of the 10th Commandment is a ban on cheeseburgers.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112588 Mar 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently better than you understand it. I purposely use technically complex expressions as a screening test for adversarial receivers.
In other words, you're simply full of shit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112589 Mar 21, 2013
And of course the Bible cannot maintain a consistent story in that one chapter.

If you read verse one of Exodus 34 you will see God claiming that he will carve the message in stone like he did the last time. In verse 27 and 28 it says that Moses wrote them in the tablets. Way to be consistent:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112590 Mar 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>30 years is almost instantly compared to most historical documents, and I bet you can't prove they were not eyewitness accounts, just like you can't prove the origin of life. You just twist what historical acounts you need to twist to justify a terribly flawed, unscientific, and biased philosophy!!

They do not claim to be eye witness accounts.

The titles were added later.

The actual authors wrote a 3rd person narrative.

Some of the texts it duplicated between books and appear to be from an earlier source that did not survive.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112591 Mar 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With GOD? Absolutely!!!<quoted text>No, It makes you look less intelligent because you have no clue concerning GOD!!<quoted text>For an engineer, that would be a flaw because a door won't support what a bridge pillar can, but for GOD it is just a matter of preference. He can make a door and balance the bridge on it if he wants too!


Can you tell KAB this? He really has an issue with God being all powerful.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112592 Mar 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
1: Laryngeal nerve - giraffe.
2: Keep an eye out for a documentary about the Jehoveh's Witnesses. Prepare your defensive rationalizations now! http://gothamist.com/2013/02/19/new_documenta...
3: Why don't you hold yourself to the established rules of logic as we do ourselves?

I think many people believe that JWs are just another branch of Fundies. This shows a bit more of their nefariousness.

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 min One way or another 173,567
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 1 hr Dogen 52
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr dirtclod 116,547
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys 1 hr TedHOhio 5
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 3 hr MikeF 488
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 3 hr Kong_ 147
Amino Acid Sequeneces prove Darwin a Liar 5 hr Chimney1 21
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••