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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116355 May 26, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
All of the verses you posted confirm Jesus is God in the flesh.

Yes, I know.

And I can post just as many that say he was not.

As I was arguing with a brainwashed JW dittohead I thought them appropriate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116356 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the verses (that would be data). Let the scrutiny begin.
John 1:1 -- Who was the Word with?


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Bear in mind I am not a trinitarian and I acknowledge that this is one of the JWs 'broken clock moments' when they actually are on the right side.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#116357 May 26, 2013
"We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist."
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116358 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Me too, knowing that according to you empirical evidence is never certain, and knowing that the source of the legend has been demonstrated to be reliable.

I thought we were talking about Biblical fables.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116359 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect anything I offered to be convincing, but you might consider what the chances are I could get what I did provide right without having seen it or at least having been told about it.

Its a shame the one missing element is you being proved right.

I don't expect invisible purple ping-pong balls to be convincing, but you might consider what the chances are I could get what I did provide right without having seen it or at least having been told about it.

See?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116360 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, you have bigger problems!

Yet here we are with you unable to defeat either the facts (data) nor the logic.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you we have confirmation.
Civilization in full and uninterrupted swing seems pretty strong evidence.
Lack of any evidence of a flood.
No genetic bottleneck at the same time period for all species.
So, what is that?... at minimum 99.9999999% certainty?
Do we have ANY science that has that sort of certainty?
So my friend, that is confirmation. It may not be such if there were any contrary data but, sadly for you, there is none.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116361 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't. Consider John 1:1 which states that the Word was WITH God (Almighty). Therefore, by linguistic definition, Jesus (the Word) cannot be God (Almighty). So it is necessary to determine how else the statement that the Word was god (same nature?) can be understood since the Word being with God (Almighty) and being God (Almighty) are linguistically mutually exclusive.

Except the rest of the verse says the word was God.

So, yea, you can believe what you want if you are willing to preform vivisection (lit. to cut the life out of) on the Bible.

This is a fairly common literary device called chiasmus and the Bible uses it at a number of junctures.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116362 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. All you have to prove is that the Bible accounts are not possible.

First, no, that is not what WE have to prove.

Second, we have already done so.

Who has the burden of proof?

This guy:
http://www.youronlinemirror.com/bframe.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116363 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, there are things which can be dismissed as useless.

Yes, Kitten did a good job of doing that with your argument.


KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, the legend is impossible and you think that the source of the legend is thus reliable? That's insane. If the legends are not possible then the source of those legends is not demonstrably reliable in any way. You have to prove your legends happened in order to claim their source is reliable, since you cannot, your source can be dismissed as useless.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116364 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the original Greek, the construct of the second phrase using "theos" (God) is different from the first, allowing what the Word was with to be different from what the Word was, as is linguistically required.

Ignorant, brain washed, dweebish, doubletalk.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116365 May 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, the legend is impossible and you think that the source of the legend is thus reliable? That's insane. If the legends are not possible then the source of those legends is not demonstrably reliable in any way. You have to prove your legends happened in order to claim their source is reliable, since you cannot, your source can be dismissed as useless.
The legend has not been confirmed impossible, and you're entitled to your opinion, which in your case stands on a virtually completely data-free foundation of no credibility.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#116366 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. All you have to prove is that the Bible accounts are not possible.
Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes to cure his/her leprosy.

Pi=3.

The sun standing still in the sky.

Letting livestock copulate in front of striped sticks resulting in their offspring having striped coats.

QED
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116367 May 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The Noachian flood is dismissed by all the scientists I know about, its pretty much not even thought about anymore, the evidence is so overwhelming against it.
Of course being scientists, in the back of their mind is the remote possibility that it did happen and if actual evidence did pop up they would be the first to explore it. Science DOES acknowledge their mistakes you know.
Thank you for a very weighty post, the scientific recognition that the Noachian flood could have happened. It's most unfortunate that it has taken this long for your side to acknowledge that, and in what position does it put those on your side who have so often proclaimed confirmation that it didn't happen?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116369 May 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you are just making wild guesses.
Since you're a self-proclaimed expert in advanced math, based on the widely recognized (often chided) track record of my approach to posting in this forum, what'd be the chances that I would risk an unforced error on a wild guess identifying dice as being involved in something of which I had neither seen nor heard.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116370 May 26, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
If you don't demonstrate, with data, that you can reason, this exchange isn't going very far. Let's start with why you have included reference to John 1:14 in two responses about John 1:1, where the focus has been the relationship between the Word and God.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116371 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you assert reliability when empirical evidence is never certain? How else do you ascertain reliability if not via empirical evidence? Oh, KAB, I'm afraid logic really is not your friend.
Are reliability and certainty the same thing? Clue: Must something be certain to be reliable?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116372 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're failing again.
You assert the possibility of God doing X. You first must demonstrate the requisite conditions for God doing X are true (namely, the existence of God). Until such time as you have done this, your assertions regarding the deeds of your God are rightly rejected.
Now, whether the empirical evidence refutes such claims (which, in many cases, it does) is largely irrelevant. First, demonstrate the possibility of your Bible stories being true by demonstrating that your God is possible and why your God is possible, then demonstrate its existence to show why it's possible for those stories to be true at all.
Remember, just because there is a bag that may have dice in it doesn't mean it's possible to roll an 18. You're saying it is possible. I just want you, at a bare minimum, to demonstrate that possibility. Otherwise, your claims are rightly rejected without any need to disprove them. Your claim, your burden of proof. Meet it or admit that you can't. Be honest with us. And, more importantly, be honest with yourself.
Logic is NOT your friend. Logic is going to force you to admit the irrationality of your position. Logic has never been on the side of religious beliefs. Ever. Never ever ever. Not even once. Not even for little ol' you. Disagree? Great. You've got your challenge above. Meet it or concede.
Job 26:7

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116373 May 26, 2013
OOOOObama wrote:
Atheists should try to debate with, or refute the responses of REAL Christians, such as Biblical scholars and Apologetics websites. They have the answers for EVERYTHING. One of my favorites is www.gotquestions.org . Atheists like to take cheap shots at the arrogant and not very educated Christians, but can they challenge actual THEOLOGIANS and SCHOLARS, and generally knowledgeable Christians?
&fe ature=share&list=PL348B28C 103B3C9E0

http://youtu.be/4KBx4vvlbZ8

http://youtu.be/H7XUsgat1j0

http://youtu.be/83NLkGZHTSw
http://youtu.be/V8bHEWQOsiU

http://youtu.be/zPsmYWbY-VA

You act as though this never happens. It happens ALL THE TIME. And, guess what? Never has a single one resulted in someone presenting actual evidence of the existence of God or the veracity of the Bible in its entirety. Isn't that just the weirdest thing?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#116374 May 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically, what species of fish is capable of the allegation?
How were plants created before 99.8% of all other matter in the solar system? What ACTUAL real evidence is there that does not DISPROVE a global flood?
Tyre? Exodus? Red Sea? Talking animals? The sun and moon stood still? Staves turned into snakes? Etc., etc...?
If the Bible is not a demonstrated fallible document, would you not be more observant of facts vs. "truths."
I don't know what species of fish are capable of swallowing a man whole.
Were plants created before 99.8% of all other matter in the solar system?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116375 May 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are reliability and certainty the same thing? Clue: Must something be certain to be reliable?
It's your demand for certainty, not mine. I'm the one that asserts (rightly, I might add) that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. You assert that there is. If there is such a thing, you must demonstrate such for your assertion to be accepted. People who understand how science works all disagree with you and agree with me. People who don't understand how science works think you know what you're talking about. Sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the people who know how science works on this one.

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 Hidingfromyou 132,449
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,617
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Dogen 499
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 7 hr Zach 4
How would creationists explain... 7 hr TurkanaBoy 314
Science News (Sep '13) 12 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web