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
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114968 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you haven't provided data confirming that people haven't been abducted by spacemen. Are you calling all those abduction stories by all those unrelated and unfamiliar people lies? Are you saying they're crazy? Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, right? Are they liars, lunatics, or are they actual victims of alien abductions? If you can't prove their stories are false, shouldn't we accept them as true?
They're not demonstrated reliable sources.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#114969 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not demonstrated reliable sources.
They are all just as valid as your bible.
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114970 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything? No. EVERYTHING? Yes. The time to accept that everything in the Bible is true is when everything in the Bible has been confirmed true with ACTUAL EVIDENCE. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Until that occurs, the correct and justified position is to reject all claims that have not been demonstrated true with evidence.
Has the flood been demonstrated true with evidence? You have already admitted it has not. Therefore, the only JUSTIFIED position is to reject it. That doesn't require assertion of the contrapositive; it just means the claim has not been demonstrated to be true. The burden of proof has not been met.
Do try to be honest with yourself for once. I promise, it won't hurt forever.
You are free to judge only on the basis of physical evidence if you want, however, it has been proven there are things your approach misses by not accepting a demonstrated reliable source (Hebrews 11:1,6).
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114971 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you lied. Gotcha.
You're entitled to your opinion.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114972 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
They are all just as valid as your bible.
...as well as believeable.
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114973 May 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. There was no global flood. Get over it.
Out of ammunition again I see.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#114974 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to judge only on the basis of physical evidence if you want, however, it has been proven there are things your approach misses by not accepting a demonstrated reliable source (Hebrews 11:1,6).
Still waiting for you to provide evidence demonstrating any of the supernatural claims in your bible.
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114975 May 8, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>There was no global flood ergo there is no evidence of one occurring.
What about evidence of one not occurring?
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114976 May 8, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Other then the Bible there is no mention of Egypt being conquered by ol' Neeby. I can find nothing in any other literature.
Do you know of any confirming outside source. Thid would mean that Egypt was desolated twice by Biblical interference
Berossus
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114977 May 8, 2013
Sorry, Berossus is not a confirming source, so the answer is no.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#114978 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What about evidence of one not occurring?
In most cases that would not be possible, but in this particular case, you have been shown a lot of evidence that opposes a global flood. Why do you have to lie about that?
KAB

Bellevue, WA

#114979 May 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What!? No, I don't have to provide "data". I merely have to mention some of the facts that do not fit in with the idea of a global flood.
As was already pointed out the lack of genetic or population bottlenecks alone debunks the flood myth. Add to that the fact that there should be physical evidence of a flood and there is none shows there was no flood.
We have already made our case. You have nothing. You lose.
It's time for you to look in the global scale 1.4 million year old flood gauge,... again?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#114980 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's time for you to look in the global scale 1.4 million year old flood gauge,... again?
So you admit that the world is at least 1.4 million years old.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114981 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the references regarding who wrote Matthew. One of those near the top of the list I quote here,
"Probably Matthew.
It is not known for certain who wrote the book of Matthew"

You mean Matthew was NOT at the top of the list of who probably wrote Matthew?

Wow.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114982 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I gaurantee you I will look at evidence.

Next time will be the first.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114983 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you prove he didn't, what are you being?

Reasonable.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114984 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have.

Be proud.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114985 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll remember that when I accept something without proof.

Have you forgotten your a Dub? Or is that J-Dub. I remember that when you accept something WITH proof.

Remember, your "bible" was made up by a quorum of uneducated coots.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114986 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You always overlook the value of a demonstrated reliable source..

If we had a demonstrated reliable source I am sure it would be valuable. But as for as the bible being said source, no one had done more to convince me that the bible is not historically reliable than yourself.

You can take pride in that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114987 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, logical and sane according to your characterization.

Believing something for which there is no evidence is "logical and sane"?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min The Dude 131,851
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 min The Dude 464
Science News (Sep '13) 14 min Ricky F 2,940
How would creationists explain... 18 min The Dude 291
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) 11 hr IAMIOOWAN 516
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 15 hr Brian_G 13,614
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 19 hr The Dude 87
More from around the web