It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

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

There are 141815 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

#118897 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You dolt, a designer can do what they want.
Now you are telling God how he has to be.
What great folly.
Perhaps I should have told him to do it the way you require instead of just humbly accepting the way he did it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#118898 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to think about that and retract that statement?
Not at the moment.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118899 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you are confabulating terms here.
Neither evolution nor any other branch of science says God is a fake.
Atheists often say this. And sometimes the atheists are even scientists. But that does not mean that science says or implies that. Science cannot (yet at least) address the issue of the existence of God. While it has refuted some IDEAS about God, the real thing, if it exists, is untouched.
Would you like a list of ministers who accept evolution or a list of denominations that do?
DO you just make it a habit of reading something and making a reply like you read something else.
As I stated "So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?

If you read that it says and quote again "evolutionists say" not evolution says or science says.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118900 Jun 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget the whale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =5aimo1jkE58XX

I love that bit.


Not as theologically as 42, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118901 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
Nothing in science refutes the possible existence of a god, however, no evidence suggests or supports one either. As to your god, that's easy, your god is too human.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118902 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
It is really hard to quote mine when you post a link. Do you even know what quote mine means?

Quote-mine or contextomy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quot...

Don't you know how the DI actually composes its propaganda?

[Hint: people quote the Bible out of context all the time. How do they get away with that?]
LowellGuy

Statesville, NC

#118903 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.
DI has said that no matter what evidence may arise, they will not be swayed from 100% belief that 100% of the Bible is 100% true. That is an inherently intellectually dishonest position. When they have explicitly admitted their dishonesty, why should anybody take them seriously about science?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118904 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
It is really hard to quote mine when you post a link. Do you even know what quote mine means?
You have no idea what quote mining even is.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118905 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
DO you just make it a habit of reading something and making a reply like you read something else.
As I stated "So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
If you read that it says and quote again "evolutionists say" not evolution says or science says.
Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionist," anymore than there are gravitists ... your point is moot.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118906 Jun 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't intelligence relative (e.g., me being relatively more intelligent than you)?

Nice dodge.

Okay, that is a lie. Crappy dodge. And avoiding the point.

If you can't address a point and you try to joke your way out if it does that mean you think the point goes away?

I would hate to think I am dumber than a box of rocks, which is your nearest RELATIVE intellectual equivalent.

Other than that I hope you are having a great day.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118907 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
It is really hard to quote mine when you post a link. Do you even know what quote mine means?
I don't think you were being accused of quote mining. His claim is that your source that you linked is guilty of quote mining.

I have not noticed any by you, yet.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118908 Jun 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I should have told him to do it the way you require instead of just humbly accepting the way he did it.

How is that different than what you are already doing?

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118909 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote-mine or contextomy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quot...
Don't you know how the DI actually composes its propaganda?
[Hint: people quote the Bible out of context all the time. How do they get away with that?]
And the definition is: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Now again I posted the link, the whole article. So how is that quote mining?

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118910 Jun 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionist," anymore than there are gravitists ... your point is moot.
Then there are no such thing as creationists either no more than there are bibletists. So your point is moot as well.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118911 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
DO you just make it a habit of reading something and making a reply like you read something else.
As I stated "So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
If you read that it says and quote again "evolutionists say" not evolution says or science says.

First of all there is really no such thing as an "evolutionist" that can be equated to any one thing. Creationist can be equated to fundamentalist and thought that is not perfectly accurate it is close.

If, however, by that term (evolutionist) you mean "scientist" then that is fine.

A scientist can say the former as a scientist but cannot say the later as a scientist. Yes, I know there are militant atheist scientists that claim they can, but simply put they are wrong.

Scientists are people and people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that science is speaking.

For example if a tax attorney says that it will rain tomorrow. He is not making that claim as a tax attorney now is he?

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118912 Jun 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what quote mining even is.
As Dogen linked it The definition is: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Now again I posted the link, the whole article. So how is that quote mining?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118913 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
And the definition is: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Now again I posted the link, the whole article. So how is that quote mining?

I am not accusing YOU of quote mining. Not at all!

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118914 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all there is really no such thing as an "evolutionist" that can be equated to any one thing. Creationist can be equated to fundamentalist and thought that is not perfectly accurate it is close.
If, however, by that term (evolutionist) you mean "scientist" then that is fine.
A scientist can say the former as a scientist but cannot say the later as a scientist. Yes, I know there are militant atheist scientists that claim they can, but simply put they are wrong.
Scientists are people and people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that science is speaking.
For example if a tax attorney says that it will rain tomorrow. He is not making that claim as a tax attorney now is he?
evolutionist - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolut...

Evolutionism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

creationist - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creati...

Creationism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

as you can see one word is just as real as the other word and both are referred to as beliefs. Both examples are from the same sources.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118915 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not accusing YOU of quote mining. Not at all!
My bad. You did say "they". My apologies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118916 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
evolutionist - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolut...
Evolutionism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
creationist - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creati...
Creationism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
as you can see one word is just as real as the other word and both are referred to as beliefs. Both examples are from the same sources.

?

I think you completely missed my point. Completely and totally.

I was not suggesting it was not a real word.

Unicorn is a real word, but it still does not exist in the real world.


Let me edit my previous post to take out elements that seem to be confusing you

----------

Dogen wrote: Scientists are people and people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that science is speaking. For example if a tax attorney says that it will rain tomorrow. He is not making that claim as a tax attorney now is he?

=-=-=-=-=-
Is that better?

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
OBAMA SUCKS! anyone vote for obama and now wish... (Jul '09) 9 min Thomass38 291
YANKEE SLAVE TRADERS yup it's TRUE 20 min Jim Bob Thormbird 1
PISSANT James Lawrence Smith 23 min Jim Bob Thormbird 3
Lets Not Reelect Bothwell 28 min Jim Bob Thormbird 6
Local Politics Do you approve of M. Bellamy as Mayor? (Oct '13) 33 min Jim Bob Thormbird 14
News Confederate flag fan defends the stars & bars 37 min Jim Bob Thormbird 43
Local Politics Do you approve of Trena Parker as Director of E... Thu deano777 1
More from around the web

Asheville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages