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

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

There are 160998 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

Wilson, NC

#114787 May 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not demonstrated that Canada's conquest of America and the currently accepted history of America and Canada are mutually exclusive. Where is your evidence that Canada never conquered America? If you have it, present it. Your evidence is not in the form of a question. There, I just gave you some help in identifying the evidence. Now, go find it, then present it.
Unfortunately, Dr. D has muddied the Canadian waters. Now, to proceed without wasting my time and effort, I need to know if you agree that for the purpose of this analysis Canada began when it was founded. I realize that seems trivially obvious, but you know Dr. D!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114788 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Berossus states Nebby won. Perhaps you could quote his non-time-stamped statement to that effect. Perhaps you could even surround it with the context, as I have done, so we could be directly reminded and see for ourselves that there's no linguistic requirement that the "conquered Egypt" statement must apply to the time when Nebby's father was alive. Maybe you could even get someone adept with the English language to give you an objective language-mechanics-only assessment.

I highlighted you failure above. Since the time stamp is of the year Nebby's father died we can conclude it was before the prophecy.

So what do we know of that victory?

1. I was before the prophecy.
2. It was against an Egyptian army.
3. It was not fought in Egypt.
4. It was not fought for Egypt.
5. If this is all you have then it represents an epic failure on your part to defend the prophecy (as we have seen).

Further, you have not address the myriad other failures of the prophecy.

Why is that, do you think?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114789 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of stating, "It doesn't.", you could have just provided the quote, allowing all to draw their own conclusion, but that wouldn't have worked to your advantage, would it? Much easier to stick with a naked assertion and not try to use the data directly to demonstrate how the assertion is confirmed, especially if it isn't!

This is a lie as I have provided the quote several times now.

Your compulsive need to lie really makes you a dullard to argue with.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114790 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the simple statement that Nebby conquered Egypt, but rather seem totally entranced and distracted by another passage which is not being disputed?

Because there is no historic evidence for it. The biblical reference was that it was to occur in the future, not the past. Further the bible, as we have seen, is a proven unreliable source.

AND there is no evidence it ever happened. This is the problem with sound bite history. Without details and supporting evidence it is pretty worthless.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114791 May 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lying dodge.
Again, here is your failure:
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are wrong as always.
==========
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm relieved that the prophecy doesn't state that Nebby conquered the island of Tyre.
Whereas Tyre was THE island and whereas it is described as an island it would be redundant of the prophecy to thus describe it.
Ezekiel 26:5 - Out in the sea...
Ezekiel 26:6 - and her settlements on the mainland
Ezekiel 26:8 - He will ravage your settlements on the mainland
Ezekiel 26:17 -“‘How you are destroyed, city of renown,
peopled by men of the sea!
Not a reference to the minor villages on the shore, to be certain.
==========
It goes on to say :he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls", of course these refer to the city on the island, not the mainland which was simply a string of villages.
Ezekiel 26:10 ...when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through.
Never happened. The city gates were around the city..... on the island.
Ezekiel 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
The wealth of Tyre was behind the walls. The political an religious leaders were behind the walls. And since none of this, as outlined above, actually occurred.....
Ezekiel 26:14 -....You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
In flagrante delicto it was not tore down (at that time) and WAS rebuilt.
Grand imperial prophetic failure.
Nearly a bad as the JW failures.
Ezekiel 26:19 - when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,
Also never happened.
And the Coup de grâce:
Ezekiel 26:21 You will be sought, but you will never again be found"
Epic and complete failure.
The question you are too cowardly to answer is that if a prophecy is partially wrong, then isn't it ALL wrong?
==========
Keep running. Keep distracting. I will keep reminding.
==========
Did all men of the sea live exclusively on islands in Nebuchadnezzar's day?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114792 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most questions I ask are not because I don't know the answer.

No, they are an attempt by you to distract from the fact that you are busted by the data.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> It's important that individuals draw their own conclusions.

We have all drawn the conclusion that you are a brainwashed moron (and that is being generous).
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> For example, we have just reached agreement that the mainland settlements were viewed and referred to as part of Tyre's domain, belonging to Tyre. Destroying them was, in that respect, destroying part of Tyre.

And this is in violation to the biblical prophecy that the City of Tyre would be destroyed. You are, in effect, confessing your loss! Why not just come out an fully admit that the prophecy failed. We all know it. Your admission will be your first step on the road toward becoming an honest human being.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114793 May 4, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Teaching Intelligent Design is fun way to disturb "disturbed" atheists.
LOL

I think kids should learn Intelligent Klingon in English class.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114794 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Berossus directly states that Nebby did conquer Egypt.

Your pagan priest and astrologer Berossus wrote this about a battle prior to the prophecy even being written.

And history shows he did not conquer Egypt, but defeated a division of the Egyptian army way the heck outside of the borders of Egypt.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114795 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there was an island city of Tyre in Nebby's day. I've acknowledged that from the start of considering the topic.
I always acknowledge the facts. You aren't accustomed to seeing it in response to your posts because you provide so few facts, mostly unconfirmed and regularly proven incorrect assertions.

I have proven you to be a liar on many occasions and wrong on every occasion. I have seen better fights put up by infants when I took an empty bottle away from them.

The data has never been your friend. It refutes you at every turn.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114796 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, Dr. D has muddied the Canadian waters. Now, to proceed without wasting my time and effort, I need to know if you agree that for the purpose of this analysis Canada began when it was founded. I realize that seems trivially obvious, but you know Dr. D!

I am just demonstrating you are mucking around and are trying to avoid the issues because you keep losing.

You are boring.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114797 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did all men of the sea live exclusively on islands in Nebuchadnezzar's day?

Another dodge (a deception or lie).

Put up or shut up, punk.



Again, here is your failure:
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are wrong as always.
==========
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm relieved that the prophecy doesn't state that Nebby conquered the island of Tyre.
Whereas Tyre was THE island and whereas it is described as an island it would be redundant of the prophecy to thus describe it.
Ezekiel 26:5 - Out in the sea...
Ezekiel 26:6 - and her settlements on the mainland
Ezekiel 26:8 - He will ravage your settlements on the mainland
Ezekiel 26:17 -“‘How you are destroyed, city of renown,
peopled by men of the sea!
Not a reference to the minor villages on the shore, to be certain.
==========
It goes on to say :he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls", of course these refer to the city on the island, not the mainland which was simply a string of villages.
Ezekiel 26:10 ...when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through.
Never happened. The city gates were around the city..... on the island.
Ezekiel 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
The wealth of Tyre was behind the walls. The political an religious leaders were behind the walls. And since none of this, as outlined above, actually occurred.....
Ezekiel 26:14 -....You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
In flagrante delicto it was not tore down (at that time) and WAS rebuilt.
Grand imperial prophetic failure.
Nearly a bad as the JW failures.
Ezekiel 26:19 - when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,
Also never happened.
And the Coup de grâce:
Ezekiel 26:21 You will be sought, but you will never again be found"
Epic and complete failure.
The question you are too cowardly to answer is that if a prophecy is partially wrong, then isn't it ALL wrong?
==========
Keep running. Keep distracting. I will keep reminding.
==========
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114798 May 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Nebby was sent out to fight NechoII by his father there is a time stamp that puts it many years before the prophesy.
Nebby's dad was dead and buried for 20 years when Zeke made his Tyre prophesy, The Egyptian one he made after the Tyre siege was over, so that was more than thirty years AFTER his victory over Necho II.
In the link, do you see the direct statement that Egypt was conquered? Do you see that it is not in the paragraph discussing his father sending him to deal with the Egyptians?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114799 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the link, do you see the direct statement that Egypt was conquered? Do you see that it is not in the paragraph discussing his father sending him to deal with the Egyptians?
So what if it is in a different paragraph? The fact that there is a new paragraph is no excuse to assume that it was at a different time.

Did it say that it was thirty years later? In a case like that unless you have a reason to think that it was a different attack it only makes sense to believe Bro is describing one attack.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114800 May 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The quotes have been given to you several times already. Would you be convinced if they were given to you once again.
You are being dishonest again.
Here's the quote from Ezekiel 26:5,

"She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea"

Note the "will be". You asked for it!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114801 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the link, do you see the direct statement that Egypt was conquered? Do you see that it is not in the paragraph discussing his father sending him to deal with the Egyptians?

So he made a mistake. You make them daily.

The fact is that other sources show when and where this battle took place.

1. It was not IN Egypt.
2. It was not FOR Egypt.
3. It occurred before the prophecy.

Do you think we should accept only one source when others are available?

Do you see your error?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114802 May 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of Tyre's domain, but not the Tyre of the prophesy. Reread it. I am not going to list the pertinent verses again. Zeke called the island Tyre and the land based cities its settlements. He predicted that Nebby would be riding his horses through Tyre. He mentioned the wall, Tyre had a wall, the settlements didn't.
Now we might be getting somewhere, if you provide data confirming the mainland settlements had no walls. BTW, didn't the island Tyrians refer to the mainland as the "burbs"?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114803 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the quote from Ezekiel 26:5,
"She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea"
Note the "will be". You asked for it!

How does one failed part of a failed prophecy support another failed part of the same failed prophecy?

Maybe you should give this some thought.

Actually you should learn to think THEN give it some thought.

Do I need to point out your failure to defend the prophecy again? It is becoming repetitively redundant.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114804 May 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Confirmation bias. You don't try to figure out IF they're true; you look for ways they COULD be true. Thanks for admitting the flaw in your investigative process.
To not accept legitimate possibilities in favor of other possibilities which harmonize with one's already formed position is pretty much by definition confirmation bias. I've demonstrated numerous times how you consistently do that. BTW, I do try to figure out if they're true. The objectivity of allowing for all legitimate possibilities is an important part of the process and helps guard against confirmation bias. You should try it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#114805 May 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
With a time stamp long before the prophesy.
Why do you keep repeating claims that you know are misleading at best.
I'm struggling mightily to assist you to recognize your linguistic/grammatical error. You'll be pleased to know I don't know what more I can offer.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#114806 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To not accept legitimate possibilities in favor of other possibilities which harmonize with one's already formed position is pretty much by definition confirmation bias. I've demonstrated numerous times how you consistently do that. BTW, I do try to figure out if they're true. The objectivity of allowing for all legitimate possibilities is an important part of the process and helps guard against confirmation bias. You should try it.
So, what you said previously was incorrect. Your words said just what I said they said. You should try thinking before speaking. But, it did appear accidental. For you to be that candid and honest is quite out of your character. Should have known better.

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 7 min replaytime 426
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min River Tam 221,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 67,566
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr replaytime 417
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Eagle 12 3,559
News Texas' battle over teaching evolution comes dow... 4 hr pshun2404 8
More from around the web