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

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

There are 163695 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

#113165 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since all three use different wording, how do you determine what is a lie?

The one that does not agree with the greek is the lie. Two of them are reasonable translations from the Greek. But one of them is a fabrication that bears little resemblance to the original.

Guess which one.

Dogen wrote:
I just found another lie in the NWT.
17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him. John 1:17-18

This is a major rewrite of what a real bible says.
17 for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
YLT

7 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth [p]were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113167 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this discussion make you uncomfortable?
We are talking about what we can know for ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
Regardless of which situation (below) we are in, we can only be certain of the two things I have mentioned.
Can you think of any others? Your inability to add anything speaks volumes.
Note: above post kept to 1 question.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we don't know that for certain. We cannot know that for certain.
You could be a brain in a jar hallucinating the whole thing.
You may not even have physical form.
You could be god playing the role of brainwashed fundy in your own little fantasy.
In none of those cases is there the necessity for a non-cubic earth.
Even if I am in a jar, Earth is not cubic. If I have no physical form, Earth is still not cubic. If I am god, Earth is still not cubic. Earth is what it is, and that is not cubic. You apparently don't fully appreciate the value of philosophy.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113168 Mar 31, 2013
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113169 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
KAB,
You have not responded to recent posts #:
113143
113146
113148
113150
I am sure you have just fallen a bit behind and it this is not an attempt to avoid the issues.
113143 No
113146 No
113148 Answered
113150 Answered

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113170 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if I am in a jar, Earth is not cubic. If I have no physical form, Earth is still not cubic. If I am god, Earth is still not cubic. Earth is what it is, and that is not cubic. You apparently don't fully appreciate the value of philosophy.

These are your beliefs from within the jar. Beliefs are 1st person reports, nothing more.

I do appreciate philosophy. One more undergraduate class and I could have had a minor in it. I met my wife in a class called "Religion and modern thought"
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113171 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your great expertise on the bible.
I can rephrase the question if you like.
What claims does the Watchtower make about Michael and Jesus?
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible...
The Watchtower shows how the Bible indicates that Michael the archangel is another one of Jesus' names/titles.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113172 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
These are your beliefs from within the jar. Beliefs are 1st person reports, nothing more.
I do appreciate philosophy. One more undergraduate class and I could have had a minor in it. I met my wife in a class called "Religion and modern thought"
I now have an increased appreciation for your problem.

Before I existed and was able to think anything, Earth was here and not cubic. Beliefs are not involved. Observations are.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113173 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Watchtower shows how the Bible indicates that Michael the archangel is another one of Jesus' names/titles.

I read it.

As I have spent a couple decades working with the mentally ill, I was already acquainted with the logic. Taking a few unrelated references and pasting them together is a theme I have seen in people with schizophrenia, delusional disorder and occasionally mania.

Does the sketchiness of the logic bother you at all?

Don't bother to answer that. It was rhetorical. And you will just answer "no" without the courage to elaborate, as is typical of you.

I love to show how the JWs are liars, but this is not a lie. This is not a powerplay like I have become fimiliar with from the watchtower. This comes from a deep longing for things to fit together no matter how often one has to take scissors to the puzzle.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113174 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I now have an increased appreciation for your problem.
Before I existed and was able to think anything, Earth was here and not cubic. Beliefs are not involved. Observations are.

Sorry, no dice (aren't I hysterical?).

You have no eyes in your jar, so no actual observation is possible. All your senses are just products of your own mind (1st person reports). There is no doubt you BELIEVE that the earth is not a cube, but as you can no more prove there is an actual Earth as you can that it is not a cube.

I am not saying we do not accept apparent reality as real, but as far as what we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN there is only Cogito Ergo Sum and 1st person reports (I feel, I believe, I sense, I think).
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113175 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The one that does not agree with the greek is the lie. Two of them are reasonable translations from the Greek. But one of them is a fabrication that bears little resemblance to the original.
Guess which one.
Dogen wrote:
I just found another lie in the NWT.
17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him. John 1:17-18
This is a major rewrite of what a real bible says.
17 for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
YLT
7 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth [p]were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB
YLT refers to the "only begotten Son".
NASB refers to the "only begotten God".
Which does not agree with the Greek?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113176 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
YLT refers to the "only begotten Son".
NASB refers to the "only begotten God".
Which does not agree with the Greek?

The NWT.

Is it dishonest to pick at nits when there is an elephant in the room?

Is is wise?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113177 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, no dice (aren't I hysterical?).
You have no eyes in your jar, so no actual observation is possible. All your senses are just products of your own mind (1st person reports). There is no doubt you BELIEVE that the earth is not a cube, but as you can no more prove there is an actual Earth as you can that it is not a cube.
I am not saying we do not accept apparent reality as real, but as far as what we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN there is only Cogito Ergo Sum and 1st person reports (I feel, I believe, I sense, I think).
You're entitled to your opinion, a commodity found in abundance in the world of philosophy, I imagine. What's philosophy's position on conflicting opinions?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113178 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you can see from your own example, the reliability of a book is directly related to the pupose for which it was produced. If the author's intent is to have one uncertain/untrue claim in a book of millions of true claims, he can certainly do that.
BTW, thinking something is not so is uncertainty.
And you continue to assume to know the intent of the Bible's authors, as well as the intent of the hypothetical book's author(s). Let's say the intent of the author(s) of the hypothetical book is the same as that of the authors of the Bible. One MILLION claims demonstrated true, and one claim that cannot be verified or falsified by any means known to man. Should we accept that claim as true, no matter how wacky, outrageous, and in contradiction to all known reality it is? Or, should we approach that claim just as skeptically as we approached every other claim, and not accept it until it's demonstrated true, just like the million other claims?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113179 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Watchtower shows how the Bible indicates that Michael the archangel is another one of Jesus' names/titles.
Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.*

----------

* More information showing that the name Michael applies to God’s Son is found in Volume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible...

Were you ignorant of this, or were you lying? Dogen asked you a specific question. You dithered, then you offered an ambiguous answer. This is the specific answer. Either you don't know what your church's teachings are, or you do but you'd rather not say what they are. Which is it?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113180 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The NWT.
Is it dishonest to pick at nits when there is an elephant in the room?
Is is wise?
Just keep tipping your hand. It's working nicely so far. However, I'm sure we are reaching the point of diminishing returns with regard to any objective observers. Except where I think there's something new and meaningful likely to be gained, you won't be getting responses. You have shown clearly that your assertions are consistently incorrect, so at this point there's generally nothing compelling a response no matter what you assert.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113181 Mar 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you continue to assume to know the intent of the Bible's authors, as well as the intent of the hypothetical book's author(s). Let's say the intent of the author(s) of the hypothetical book is the same as that of the authors of the Bible. One MILLION claims demonstrated true, and one claim that cannot be verified or falsified by any means known to man. Should we accept that claim as true, no matter how wacky, outrageous, and in contradiction to all known reality it is? Or, should we approach that claim just as skeptically as we approached every other claim, and not accept it until it's demonstrated true, just like the million other claims?
How wacky, outrageous, and in contradiction to all known reality were the other million claims before testing?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113182 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, a commodity found in abundance in the world of philosophy, I imagine. What's philosophy's position on conflicting opinions?

Sorry, this is not something subject to debate. These are the only truly axiomatic truths known. This epistemology is the foundation of rationalism.

Read about Descartes some time.

What modern philosophy calls 1st person reports, Descartes called "a posteriori claims".

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96cla...

http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/des...

Other philosophers claim that more than these things can be known, but their work is based on assumptions. Not wholly unreasonable assumptions, but assumption never the less. No one doubts that the 2 thinks can be known for certain are certain. only that their may be more.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113183 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep tipping your hand. It's working nicely so far. However, I'm sure we are reaching the point of diminishing returns with regard to any objective observers. Except where I think there's something new and meaningful likely to be gained, you won't be getting responses. You have shown clearly that your assertions are consistently incorrect, so at this point there's generally nothing compelling a response no matter what you assert.

Run away!
Run away!
Run away!

I came,
I provided data
Mr Chicken Feces ran away.

Remember: You ran from the data! You ran from the objective information. You ran from page after page of PROOF that the watchtower lies and puts "subliminal" fear generating images in their artwork.

BTW, Why aren't you out converting the masses as is your responsibility as a watchtower cult member? Why are you wasting time HERE, driving people away from the cult with your empty lies and OBVIOUS deceptions.

Finally, I REJECT your resignation.

I will continue to point out every lie you tell.
I will continue to point people to the objective evidence.
I will continue to provide the DATA about what watchtowerism really IS.
Together we will drive people away from watchtowerism!

We are saving the world from psychotic mind control crap. You and me. We are a TEAM!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113184 Mar 31, 2013
Lets refer to post #113180 as "the one where KAB ran away".
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113185 Mar 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.*
----------
* More information showing that the name Michael applies to God’s Son is found in Volume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible...
Were you ignorant of this, or were you lying? Dogen asked you a specific question. You dithered, then you offered an ambiguous answer. This is the specific answer. Either you don't know what your church's teachings are, or you do but you'd rather not say what they are. Which is it?
I didn't realize I was required to use exactly the same words. Remember, I focus on content. In my own words I stated that it is logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus Christ.

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) 1 hr Endofdays 79,758
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Science 32,576
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 hr Agents of Corruption 222,728
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
What's your religion? Sep 8 Ateesiks 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web