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

There are 141343 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110411 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.
That's an assertion, it's not data or evidence at all, he asked for data.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110412 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You should follow your own advice concerning human from non-human evolution.
Alright, if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did humans come into being? Note, I asked how, "god dun it" isn't how, that's who.
KAB

United States

#110413 Feb 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not data; that's just a link to data.
And, the Bible is not evidence of the Bible's veracity, any more than my testimony is evidence of my testimony's veracity. Try again.
The question raised is about authorship of the document, not veracity. A statement from the document about its authorship is data about its authorship. Try to stay on point!
KAB

United States

#110414 Feb 18, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Specific conclusions or precise data it is based on should only be provided to peope of whom we know they will scrutinize all the material with a fine toothcomb and present us with a razorsharpanalysis and either supporting evidence or point out the way to falsify it.
You are not in that category, and we doubt you even read any.
That's apart from understanding it.
So the future can only hold more books, 101's ander other sorts of introductory marterial.
I'm royal with the we's.;p
Thanks for the razor sharp commentary on razor sharp analysis. It's so characteristic of you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110415 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The question raised is about authorship of the document, not veracity. A statement from the document about its authorship is data about its authorship. Try to stay on point!
I owned a book that made the claim it was written by the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred, it's called the Necronomicon. Was it written by Abdul?
KAB

United States

#110416 Feb 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an assertion, it's not data or evidence at all, he asked for data.
By definition, an assertion requires a statement declaring a position. I made no such statement. I merely provided data.
KAB

United States

#110417 Feb 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I owned a book that made the claim it was written by the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred, it's called the Necronomicon. Was it written by Abdul?
Is the data conclusive?
KAB

United States

#110418 Feb 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did humans come into being? Note, I asked how, "god dun it" isn't how, that's who.
Genesis 2:7. That's all the detail that is given.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110419 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the data conclusive?
As conclusive as the bible and quran.
KAB

United States

#110420 Feb 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Some of KAB's post is telling:
"I know nothing of Mr. Ingersall... I know that his assertions are either unconfirmed or wrong."
I'd have to call that prejudice.
Or the consequence of having over one hundred years of additional data available.
KAB

United States

#110421 Feb 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
As conclusive as the bible and quran.
So the data provided thusfar is insufficient to confirm who wrote any of the 3 documents now on the table.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110422 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed you do repeat things back whether the "reworked" statement makes sense or not. Your science related dataless assertion is just as worthless as ever.

I understand. You got nothing.

My fault for expecting more.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110423 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.

Does not say Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Next!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110424 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you afraid to test your hypothesis? The scientific method calls for testing. Provide something specific to one of your (Ingersoll's) points, and see if I read it.

The Documentary Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypo...

Literary historical research is more likely to be published in books (due to the volume of supporting data) and not so much in peer review journals (which are more the realm of science). You are welcome to read the source documentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5036.html

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_pen...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/quest-for-the-h...

OR you can continue to pretend that just because the facts are not in front of you that they do not exist (as per usual).
LowellGuy

United States

#110425 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The question raised is about authorship of the document, not veracity. A statement from the document about its authorship is data about its authorship. Try to stay on point!
So, if I write a book and sign it "Bill Clinton," is that evidence that he wrote it? If it was discovered centuries later, would reputable historians treat it as though Bill Clinton wrote it?

But, it's different when it's your favorite book, right?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110426 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So if no one gives you data to back up what they say do you just discard/ignore what they are saying and believe its not true??

He does that regardless of the data.

He also ignores the larger context of his own passages.

Galatians 6
3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. 6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.



Romans 14
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.


Surly KAB does not want us to look at the context!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110427 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is obvious you've never read or researched "The Signature of GOD" by Grant Jefferies.

Ah, the book that inspired the term "junk apologetics".

It is not scholarly research.
It is not based on the best information.
It is one of the longer "appeal to emotion" fallacies in the English language.

Not something a thoughtful Christian would be interested in.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110428 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You should follow your own advice concerning human from non-human evolution.

What point about the fact of human evolution do you want to make?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110429 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Robert Ingersoll was an evolutionist, but he wasn't a scientist. He was a lawyer. Funny how you'll take his 19th. century philosophy and discard that from a micro-biochemist professor. In reality, it supports my claim that human from non-human evolution is not science, but a humanist philosophy.

Ingersoll is just one among many people who have looked at the bible from a documentary hypothesis point of view. Most of the people writing on the subject are historians and theologians.

That you would take the word of ONE biochemistry PhD over MILLIONS of other life scientists, just because he happens to agree with you and NOT because he puts forth coherent science to support his religious contentions, clearly identifies your fallacy of the day as 'Confirmation Bias'.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110430 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No

It certainly sounds like that is what you do.


thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So if no one gives you data to back up what they say do you just discard/ignore what they are saying and believe its not true??

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.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MEMORIAL DAY SALUTES Our BRAVE MILITARY! 9 hr Georgina Hunnicutt 3
GOD BLESS Our BRAVE MILITARY! 9 hr Georgina Hunnicutt 3
Wal-Mart idiot 14 hr Buncy Aurora Oakes 2
OBAMA & Other Liberals Think American Voters Ar... 19 hr NYC TEA Party 3
treasure club Sun glenn 1
Where Did Drunk Bothwell Thread Go (Jul '14) Sun Thomas G Hoffman 14
News Oconaluftee Job Corps center to reopen (Sep '08) Sat Dezarey 58
More from around the web

Asheville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]