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

forreal wrote:

<quoted text>many prophecies spoken by a man of God was also fulfilled by others generations later to let you know God word is true.Your faith in whatever you want to believe it really up to you but sadly how can you deny the fact there was a way you could have lived forever had you not been so stubborn.

Have you lost your marbles, what arrogance!
It's not as if you are keeping The Law.
You are following the one that abolished it and read the weirdest stuff in your Stolen Scripture O.T.
You are not even capable of a proper interpretation nor did you ever even get the underlying philosophy.
Otherwise you would long ago have understood that human-sacrifice can never atone for an act out of free will and is even forbidden or why un-/intentional sin is forgiven every year.
So your believe has nothing to do with the Hebrew Book.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, that quibble over a logic argument sure was a severe lack of data!
Unless you just mean that it had words and letters and stuff.

It was establishing by example(s) the logical fallacy committed (not just asserting it). That's data. If you find the reasoning erroneous then you can provide the reasoning (data) to establish that, or you can continue to follow your side's custom of just asserting it is wrong (no data).

KAB wrote:

... or you can continue to follow your side's custom of just asserting it is wrong (no data).

That was a bit of a projection, wasn't it?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Sargon was known only from the Bible, and therefore discounted, until extrabiblical evidence was found, and now, based on that evidence alone, he is among the best known Assyrian Kings. Perhaps you are aware that the record of Sargon is not found in the very last books of the Bible. Beyond this, when I see you provide data to support your remaining assertions I will respond to them.

Just to clarify: every testable claim in the Bible has been proven true, which is what makes it reliable. YOUR criteria for reliability demand this. Has EVERY testable claim in the Bible been proven true? Is the Noah's flood story a testable claim? Has it been proven true? If not, is the Bible reliable?

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Creationism has no answer for index fossils.

"Index fossils" is not a question/challenge. I have no problem with index fossils as a topic. What is your question/challenge?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
It was establishing by example(s) the logical fallacy committed (not just asserting it). That's data. If you find the reasoning erroneous then you can provide the reasoning (data) to establish that, or you can continue to follow your side's custom of just asserting it is wrong (no data).

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Where's that flood evidence?

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, of coarse its the lying Bible that is to blame. We know its mostly fiction, and other than a few real people and places it is mostly bunk

Is that your attempt at true science? Think about it, and you may start to discern why what you think is true science, is in fact not. Clue: You provided no data! If you prove one point erroneous with specific data, it has great import. If you simply make a dataless statement attempting to characterize the whole Bible at once it has no import at all, scientifically.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
In your mind maybe...I have seen no data that unequivocally proves the Bible, Jesus, or God. And the Bible is full of inconsistencies and flat out wrong data.
All your corroborating evidence comes from Christian apologetic's and is nothing but words...you are totally being conned.

Perhaps you should reconsider who's being conned. Note, you didn't provide an example of data proving a specific Bible error.

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
KAB answered which is not the same as providing data!:
The only way to prove any evidence against A to be false is to prove A to be true.
KAB the onus is on you to proof that A=Noah's flood actually happened.

The onus here was to establish that a logical fallacy had been committed, which I did by way of example(s). That's data. If you think I have erred then you can provide data to attempt to establish your position.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The onus here was to establish that a logical fallacy had been committed, which I did by way of example(s). That's data. If you think I have erred then you can provide data to attempt to establish your position.

Another rabbit attack.

Are you done playing with the rest?
I still suggest you read tangled banks arguements and watch the graphic footage provided by Mike F.
And then you can explain to me why you still do not get it...because that would be the point.
(Short of dragging you to the Atacama or dunk you in a flood and force-feeding aridity data.)

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
You provided no data about the earth hanging upon nothing. You provided a definition of "hang" and then an incorrect assertion that this definition applied to the earth. Falling objects are not hanging, and gravity is not nothing. It is your assertion that hangs upon nothing, and NOT the earth.
So was Job's incorrect thought from God?

Webster has stated its position. You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you can convince these guys,

"Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

Here we are talking to people that read a book that clearly states that it only provides hear-say claiming to have thus gained absolute knowledge about reality.

I should have stopped wondering, but i also noticed that those people can't follow legal arguements. Makes one wonder about the connection.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
None of those definitions map to Earth's situation in the universe. None. Not a one. Not even this time.

Maybe you can convince these guys,

"Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Webster has stated its position. You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you can convince these guys,
"Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

Repeating lying bullshit over and over again does not change the fact it is lying bullshit.

And you STILL haven't provided a reference to Webster supporting a 'hanging earth'. Put up or STFU.

The Nerd wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see how its impossible? A Lion and a Tiger can produce a Liger, which is still a "feline kind". Unless you want to argue that a Liger is a kind of canine.:p

What about horses and donkeys? Are they the same kind? If so, why is their offspring impotent?

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
Glad to hear that you agree there was no "Noachian" (single breeding pair) bottleneck 4500 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...

My yes reflects that the quotes provided were from the article, and the article is what I had in mind. The Noah account does not present a single breeding pair.

LowellGuy wrote:
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sargon was known only from the Bible, and therefore discounted, until extrabiblical evidence was found, and now, based on that evidence alone, he is among the best known Assyrian Kings. Perhaps you are aware that the record of Sargon is not found in the very last books of the Bible. Beyond this, when I see you provide data to support your remaining assertions I will respond to them.

L.G.: Just to clarify: every testable claim in the Bible has been proven true, which is what makes it reliable. YOUR criteria for reliability demand this. Has EVERY testable claim in the Bible been proven true? Is the Noah's flood story a testable claim? Has it been proven true? If not, is the Bible reliable?

and: where's that flood evidence?

I don't care about Sargon, the stumblingblock was not the historicity from Kings onward, but the mythical parts before.
The logical fallacy would still be defined as: proof or disproof for A does proof unrelated B.

When it clearly does not!(starting to question your understanding of the concept 'logical fallacy'.
No intent to be offensive, just wondering.)

Everything in the bible is ofcourse true in serving a purpose as in teaching a lesson about the morality of actions, but just not to be taken literal.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The onus here was to establish that a logical fallacy had been committed, which I did by way of example(s). That's data. If you think I have erred then you can provide data to attempt to establish your position.

No. The onus is for *YOU* to provide proof that Noah's flood actually happened. It always has been.

Thus far you have proven yourself to be a complete and utter failure.

MAAT wrote:

I still suggest you read tangled banks arguements and watch the graphic footage provided by Mike F.

Speaking of footage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Route 56 was the road I had to take in to town.

What about it, KAB?

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Above statements make no sense to me.
Could you clarify?
Who are those socalled Jews?
What was the nature of one or more relationships?
Who are 'the Jews'?
'Some' of which group of Jews?
In what way did the influence become clear?
'óthers'of which group of Jews?
what was the nature on one or more contacts?
Who are 'them'?
All of that ofcourse apart from the question what bearing it has on my last remark????

To you,ok!!!
The Jews originally came from Ur to Palestine.About 2 tribes are presently found today while 10 are lost.Today,their influence are seen in Africa,Europe,Asia and America...