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

There are 20 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

Oxford, NC

#114818 May 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
==========
Those mainland settlements could legitimately be viewed as the suburbs of Tyre, don't you think?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114819 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Those mainland settlements could legitimately be viewed as the suburbs of Tyre, don't you think?
Sure, but they would not be called "Tyre". Bellevue, Lynnwood, Renton, and Everett are considered to be suburbs of Seattle but no one familiar with them call them "Seattle". Zeke was familiar with Tyre. It was in his neighborhood. Notice how he differentiated between the settlements and the island Tyre. His own words cause him to fail.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114820 May 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The fact that there is a new paragraph is also no excuse to assume that it was the same time. In fact, a new paragraph usually represents moving on to (are you ready for this?) something new.

Finally, you acknowledge you could be wrong. That's all that's necessary. Why couldn't you have just been objective like that from the beginning and saved all the aggravation?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114821 May 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that there is a new paragraph is also no excuse to assume that it was the same time. In fact, a new paragraph usually represents moving on to (are you ready for this?) something new.
Finally, you acknowledge you could be wrong. That's all that's necessary. Why couldn't you have just been objective like that from the beginning and saved all the aggravation?
Sane people, when they make a major change in subject, go much further than to simply start a new paragraph and say nothing else. He was obviously writing about the same attack against Egypt. The one in the field against an Egyptian army.

A change in venue and a change in time both demand explanation. Continuing on the same topic require no explanation.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114822 May 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
The separate paragraph doesn't refer to a battle. It refers to the conquering of Egypt. I think we should consider all the sources objectively, and not be like some who want to dismiss Berossus in favor of others(?) whose info they prefer. Regarding those other sources, please provide some names and citations of their relevant info. Then we can combine it with Berossus and the Bible.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114823 May 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Having established, on numerous occasions and using your own words, that you are a near completely unreliable source, I give very little thought to your input other than data.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114824 May 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Without a quote and explanatory analysis, your input is worthless, as it has proven to be so many times before.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114825 May 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever standard you have for what constitutes Tyre is the same standard I use in establishing what constitutes Canada.
Indeed, with the limited info provided, there are multiple possibilities. I'm not going to provide analysis for every possible scenario. It's your challenge. You define what scenario you want considered. So, on this point shall I start with the founding of Canada?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114826 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that there is a new paragraph is also no excuse to assume that it was the same time. In fact, a new paragraph usually represents moving on to (are you ready for this?) something new.
Finally, you acknowledge you could be wrong. That's all that's necessary. Why couldn't you have just been objective like that from the beginning and saved all the aggravation?
I leave topix for two weeks and the same arguments are raging. Funny.

Without any warning, explanation, or reference, the "prophecy" can be diluted and redefined to mean whatever anyone wants after the fact. Or should I say, after pretty much any facts, actually happen, they can be retrofitted to the prophecy. Somebody one day invaded Tyre. Wow! There is still a Tyre even though the prophecy said it would be destroyed forever. Ahhhh! But its not the SAME Tyre! Hilarious.

You have not just defended this prophecy from falsification, but from falsifiability, which as we know renders the whole thing useless in the first place. What can mean anything, never meant anything. Either way you fail.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#114827 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Berossus directly states that Nebby did conquer Egypt.
No. He won a battle.

That's not even nearly the same thing.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114828 May 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, but they would not be called "Tyre". Bellevue, Lynnwood, Renton, and Everett are considered to be suburbs of Seattle but no one familiar with them call them "Seattle". Zeke was familiar with Tyre. It was in his neighborhood. Notice how he differentiated between the settlements and the island Tyre. His own words cause him to fail.
Are Bellevue, Lynnwood, Renton, and Everett cities/towns or are they recognized sections of Seattle?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114829 May 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sane people, when they make a major change in subject, go much further than to simply start a new paragraph and say nothing else. He was obviously writing about the same attack against Egypt. The one in the field against an Egyptian army.
A change in venue and a change in time both demand explanation. Continuing on the same topic require no explanation.
Proper bounds of language/grammar do permit otherwise, right? Actually, I find that overwhelmingly people are not sufficiently specific in their expressions to allow only one possible legitimate meaning. For the most part it takes considerable effort to achieve that. I can explain why that is if you're interested.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114830 May 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I leave topix for two weeks and the same arguments are raging. Funny.
Without any warning, explanation, or reference, the "prophecy" can be diluted and redefined to mean whatever anyone wants after the fact. Or should I say, after pretty much any facts, actually happen, they can be retrofitted to the prophecy. Somebody one day invaded Tyre. Wow! There is still a Tyre even though the prophecy said it would be destroyed forever. Ahhhh! But its not the SAME Tyre! Hilarious.
You have not just defended this prophecy from falsification, but from falsifiability, which as we know renders the whole thing useless in the first place. What can mean anything, never meant anything. Either way you fail.
You apparently FAIL to recognize the prophecy can't mean ANYTHING someone wants. It contains some very specific requirements which not everything which occurs include. At the same time, as written, it does allow for multiple possibilities. That's a harsh reality of language. Get use to disappointment as you are shown legitimate ways prophecies are fulfilled.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#114831 May 5, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No. He won a battle.
That's not even nearly the same thing.
Does that mean that Berossus' statement was not that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114832 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Proper bounds of language/grammar do permit otherwise, right? Actually, I find that overwhelmingly people are not sufficiently specific in their expressions to allow only one possible legitimate meaning. For the most part it takes considerable effort to achieve that. I can explain why that is if you're interested.
No, I am not interested in any more lies on your part.

Face it, if you were honest you would have admitted that you lost long ago.

We all know that creatards are not honest, that is one of the reason you are called creatard and not a creationist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114833 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Those mainland settlements could legitimately be viewed as the suburbs of Tyre, don't you think?

EXACTLY! And if I prophecy that Joe Smith will conquer NY city and he only conquers Newark you would be the first to rightly proclaim my prophecy was a false one.

Thank you for FINALLY asking the question I wanted you to ask so I could BUST YOU DOWN, AGAIN!

Yes, Joe Smith really CRUSHED NY! He destroyed all the building, the walls, the bridges,.... heck, he even moved the Knicks to Encino ALL by defeating Newark!!!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHA.....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114834 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that there is a new paragraph is also no excuse to assume that it was the same time. In fact, a new paragraph usually represents moving on to (are you ready for this?) something new.
Finally, you acknowledge you could be wrong. That's all that's necessary. Why couldn't you have just been objective like that from the beginning and saved all the aggravation?

You like to focus on only one source. This is necessary to maintain your deception.

The fact that the historic sources, when combined, are clear enough is something that you desperately want to ignore.

But sorry, that is the way it is.

You keep trying to focus on the minutia, in abstentia of the rest of the data. I will keep exposing you by showing the big picture.

This is why you always lose. You are FORCED to use a microscope so the rest of the picture cannot be seen. But a microscope, while appropriate in some work is never to be used to maintain the focus on the wizard and not the guy behind the curtain. Sorry, but even a dog can see the big picture.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114835 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The separate paragraph doesn't refer to a battle. It refers to the conquering of Egypt. I think we should consider all the sources objectively, and not be like some who want to dismiss Berossus in favor of others(?) whose info they prefer. Regarding those other sources, please provide some names and citations of their relevant info. Then we can combine it with Berossus and the Bible.

You like to play pretend. Pay no attention to the other sources that have been cited!

Jeremiah
cuneiform inscriptions (plural)- List his accomplishments but FAIL to list his conquering of Egypt (does list his early battle and victory over the Egyptian army)
Herodotus - Who FAILED to note Egypt had been Conquered.
Daniel
EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE

PERSIAN EVIDENCE

Further evidence.

http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/B...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114836 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Having established, on numerous occasions and using your own words, that you are a near completely unreliable source, I give very little thought to your input other than data.

In other words I have busted you more times than you care to remember and are forced to ignore me or continue to suffer the same fate over and over and over again.

Remember, it is I who have demonstrated you are a liar.

It is I who have shown you things about your cult for which you cannot answer.

it is i who have exposed your prosaic games.

It is I who have proven you to be a coward and forced you to run away over and over again [Remember post 113180!!!!]

It is I who refuted the false name you call your God by (a name inspired by Satan, no doubt).

Not to say that many others have not done just as well against you. You seem to have a persistent delusion that you are doing well that the facts (the data) of this forum does not support.

So, KAB, are you game for a rematch?

KAB,.... I am LAUGHING at the superior intellect.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114837 May 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, with the limited info provided, there are multiple possibilities. I'm not going to provide analysis for every possible scenario. It's your challenge. You define what scenario you want considered. So, on this point shall I start with the founding of Canada?

Without a quote and explanatory analysis, your input is worthless, as it has proven to be so many times before.

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 6 min Paul Porter1 1,644
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Blitzking 161,717
No Place For ID? 1 hr In Six Days 68
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 18,843
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Kong_ 178,597
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 3
More from around the web