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

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

There are 162987 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#72454 Jan 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't complain about gaps in the record. I expect them, partially for the reason I indicated.
So, the gaps in the geologic record for your Bible flood...wait...the word "gaps" really doesn't pertain to this, as you'd need at least two pieces of evidence for there to be a gap between them. Thus far, you have zero pieces of evidence. Maybe when you come back with some actual evidence and not "if you squint REAL HARD and are willing to believe it's exactly what I say it is, you'll see that I'm right," maybe you'd be treated less like a dumbass and more like...well...less of a dumbass. Or liar. Liar.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#72455 Jan 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So the 50,000 years needs to be examined next, now that we know a bottleneck has been detected in the Middle East as the Bible indicates it should be.
The same science that detects the bottleneck determines the timeframe. If you're willing to accept half, you have to accept the other half. You can't pick and choose which parts you accept. Don't worry, though. We don't expect scientific acumen or intellectual integrity out of you.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#72456 Jan 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever, I made my point. If you stick with the record,(gospels) and put the resurrection to the same test as any matter of law,(true beyond a reasonable doubt) then the resurrection, based on the evidence, can only be considered true. Men don't pay the price that these men paid for a lie.

Now you can feel free to reject anything you want, but it is much easier to prove that Jesus existed, and the validity and date of the gospels than it is to prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Ok, so you want to talk about "the price these men paid". Since the only evidence for this price is contained within them then the topic necessarily moves to the veracity of the gospels. Thank you. It has been ably demonstrated by many biblical scholars that the gospels were written generations after the events supposedly recorded in them. They are not even internally consistent and show clear stylistic and other evidence that they have been highly modified since origianlly written down. Hell, we even have records that the Council of Nicea chopped and changed what was to be included over 300 years after the so-called events and entirely for political reasons, truth was not even a consideration.

Even the basic story of jesus is largely borrowed from Egyptian mythology amongst other sources. There is absolutely no credible independent evidence that any of the stories in the NT actually happened.

Saying that it must be true because the gospels record how the apostles died is like saying Harry Potter must be true because it records how all those wizards died in the battle at Hogwarts. After all no body would sacrifice themselves like that unless Harry Potter was real.

Just when I think you couldn't possibly come up with anything more stupid, you manage to do it every time. You don't even realise that your own arguments disprove your proposition. I guess I should have known that trying to have a rational argument with you was a pointless exercise. Your inability to understand or use logic and reason are self evident. You obviously have no idea just how idiotic you make yourself appear. Let me give you a hint: you make an amoeba look intelligent.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72457 Jan 7, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Let's not forget the Gnostic Gospels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

Indeed!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72458 Jan 7, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig it.

Door rule!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72459 Jan 7, 2012
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any references that would help us to understand why you believe Paul would want to pervert and propagate Jesus' teachings (especially at the risk to his own career and life)?

He hated Christians?.... OR
He really believed every crazy thing he said.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text> In the first place, why would Saul (before he became 'Paul') abandon his safe and influential (and probably prosperous) position in the Pharisaical "hierarchy" to risk Jewish "excommunication" join in such a risky movement???
Of course the NT says it was because of his road-to-Damascus experience... Do you buy that, or do you have another explanation?

Oh, I believe that. A lot of people are converted on a lot less. The world is replete with major conversion of religion, politics, sexual orientation, or major attitudes. People think this is rare, but it is surprisingly common. I bet several people here (myself included) have undergone major conversions of one type or another in their life. I was once a conservative fundy. I am better now. Much better.

But really I think it most likely Paul believed all the things he said. The False Prophet would need to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72460 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:13, and Lev. 11:21. Note that the verses from Leviticus refer to flying creatures, one clearly referring to birds, the other to insects. Now find Hebrew renderings of the 3 verses ( blueletterbible.org is one source) and notice that the same word is used in each to refer to the flying creatures, from insects to birds.
Also note the difference between providing data, this being an example proving that I do, and making assertions which is what the evolution side does most consistently.

No flud data
No flud

bottom line.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72461 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that everything written in an article is determined from the data being reported in the article. Amos and Hoffman do not claim that the 50,000 or 12,000 - 20,000 years are determined by their data. If you read carefully and understand what they did you will realize that.
Their data also did not determine that humans migrated out of Africa. It determined where the bottlenecks were geographically.

No flud data
No flud.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72462 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I do realize that the 50,000 years was not determined by the data in the study. It was determined by other info, and that's another discussion.

No flud data
No flud

Final answer

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72463 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be none then.

Correct.

No flud data
no flud

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72464 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that "consensus" means it may not be so. We'd have to consider the pertinent data to determine just how well founded that understanding is.
Repeat after me:
No Flood data = No Flood.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72465 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So the 50,000 years needs to be examined next, now that we know a bottleneck has been detected in the Middle East as the Bible indicates it should be.

Quit being retarded.
No flood data = no flood.

At some point absence of evidence DOES become evidence of absence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72466 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't complain about gaps in the record. I expect them, partially for the reason I indicated.

No flood data = no flood.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

United States

#72467 Jan 7, 2012
MichiganGel wrote:
So, unless God is in the picture, the law of entropy, as well as lack of design/information input, would more than likely make abiogenesis impossible, right?
Only from a thiest's perspective.
MichiganGel wrote:
Naturally occurring chemical reactions can only proceed so far... Beyond that, there's no 'natural' impetus for the resultant molecules to "come to life," i.e., combine, replicate and gain in complexity.
Are you aware of some physical/chemical property of matter that allows chemical reactions to "only proceed so far?"

I can now only conclude that you are NOT of the school of Charles Kingsley and John Polkinghorne in which life has the ability to make itself.
MichiganGel wrote:
So, when God says, "Let the earth bring forth...," that's a creative command - not a granting of permission.
Perhaps it is more of a declaration than a command.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

United States

#72468 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
You seem to think that everything written in an article is determined from the data being reported in the article. Amos and Hoffman do not claim that the 50,000 or 12,000 - 20,000 years are determined by their data.
From Amos and Hoffman:
"We find evidence of two primary events, one ‘out of Africa’ and one placed around the Bering Strait, where an ancient land bridge allowed passage into the Americas."
-and-
"There is a strong consensus that modern humans originated in Africa and moved out to colonize the world approximately 50 000 years ago."
KAB wrote:
If you read carefully and understand what they did you will realize that.
You should take your own advice.
KAB wrote:
Their data also did not determine that humans migrated out of Africa. It determined where the bottlenecks were geographically.
Then why did they say:

"" We uncover strong signals of two distinct bottlenecks, one as we **left** Africa and one as we entered the Americas across the Bering land bridge."

No data
No 4500 year old bottleneck

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

United States

#72469 Jan 7, 2012
I do realize that the 50,000 years was not determined by the data in the study.

Straw man. They never said it was.
KAB wrote:
It was determined by other info, and that's another discussion.
And their data was consistent with the two events - African migration 50kya and Beringia migration 20-12kya.

No data
No bottleneck 4500 years ago

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

United States

#72470 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
So the 50,000 years needs to be examined next, now that we know a bottleneck has been detected in the Middle East as the Bible indicates it should be.
You're only off by 45kya

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#72471 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Gen. 1:20, Lev. 11:13, and Lev. 11:21. Note that the verses from Leviticus refer to flying creatures, one clearly referring to birds, the other to insects. Now find Hebrew renderings of the 3 verses ( blueletterbible.org is one source) and notice that the same word is used in each to refer to the flying creatures, from insects to birds.
Also note the difference between providing data, this being an example proving that I do, and making assertions which is what the evolution side does most consistently.
So now you're asserting that Genesis 1 does NOT actually refer to birds but to bugs? That ALL modern translations of the bible are wrong?

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#72472 Jan 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked for an example of the evolution side not addressing my post but just jumping to another subject, and that's what I provided, thus once again proving their assertion that they don't do that, wrong. I think the evolution side has been calling that a lie, the only difference being that they don't bother to prove their assertions. I do.
Oh really? Like you have (not) proven the flood?
KAB

Ashburn, VA

#72473 Jan 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In how much of the world would the global flood layer be identifiable today?
I don't know.

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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Science 222,188
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Science 78,578
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 26 min Science 1,371
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 791
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,430
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web