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

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

There are 141862 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 Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99342 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ignore the statement, rather I saw that it too was only a hope. You "scientific" sticklers have not tended to give much weight to hopes.

Ah, going after the low hanging fruit in the intro and ignoring the uncomfortable main act.

Can you address the CONTENT of TB's post?

Tangled Bank wrote:
"The wet/dry time resolution was sufficient to see that there was no "common wet period" throughout the entire holocene.
http://igg.cas.cn/xwzx/yjcg/201003/W020100310 ...
No global flood data
No global flood"

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99343 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand the question.

Really don't understand as in don't comprehend...
or don't understand as in avoiding the issue?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99344 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How long do you suppose it was until the first rain after the land began to reappear?
The land never disappeared.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99345 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I use ALL the data (physical and documentary) in drawing conclusions.

No, you pick what goes with what you believe. You would be a poor scientist.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99346 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a plot of data. Its information content is the same for everyone. How individuals use the data is where differences arise. My preference is to not take positions which go beyond what the data shows.
Yeah, it is. The data repeatedly confirms there was no global flood. Your preference is to stick your fingers in your ears.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99347 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do the Twin Towers still exist? Does planet Earth?
Crap! I forgot to check my calendar. I didn't realize it was Stupid Freakin Question Day.

My bad.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99348 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You made no ring species post to me "yesterday".

What's your point, man?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99349 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a plot of data. Its information content is the same for everyone. How individuals use the data is where differences arise. My preference is to not take positions which go beyond what the data shows.

This would be a LIE. You accept whatever the bible says. You accept whatever you can find that SEEMS to agree with you (even though closer examination proves you to be wrong in most cases). Science deals with data in a very specific way (the scientific method), while you treat it as something to be spun like some political pundit. It is your abuse of the data where differences arise.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99350 Oct 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only a flesh wound!
Yer arm's off!
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99351 Oct 5, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Slice it and dice it anyway you please. You are an ignorant fool committed to staying that way.
only a fool like you is still trying to fit in an extra large Dinosaurs eggs all in yellow!LOL

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99352 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a plot of data. Its information content is the same for everyone. How individuals use the data is where differences arise. My preference is to not take positions which go beyond what the data shows.
But, if they are not seeing what you say must be seen because the Bible says it must, either the evidence supporting the Bible doesn't exist or they are incompetent. Which is it? Does the evidence simply not exist, or is the entire scientific community incompetent/dishonest?
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99353 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern Scholars are interested in scholarship (adherence to the Scholarly method). As there are scholars of all religious stripes it seems unlikely that are are scared to state what they think is true.
Basically we are talking about people who have more education, more knowledge and probably more intelligence than you and who disagree with you. You don't like them for that.
Just look at all TV Preachers they are all scared of preaching the truth!They dont even compare to Billy Sunday or the Apostle Paul!LOL

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99354 Oct 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap! I forgot to check my calendar. I didn't realize it was Stupid Freakin Question Day.
My bad.
Today's first reading from the thirtieth chapter of Job indicates it is also Cosmological Ignorance Day.

Tell me, if you know all:
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light,
and where is the abode of darkness,
That you may take them to their boundaries
and set them on their homeward paths?

It is not uncommon among fundies to think darkness and light are things you can put in two separate boxes.

It is a little less common, but not by much, for them to think the only thing that existed before creation was air.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99355 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do the Twin Towers still exist? Does planet Earth?
Who ever said collapsing meant disappearing? The Twin Towers still exist in a different form, just like the earth that collapses in an earthquake when the soil liquefies beneath it. If the earth can collapse due to the soil liquefying beneath it during an earthquake, then the earth totters, which means the Bible is wrong.

Now, does the earth collapse when soil liquefies during an earthquake? Answer the question. You know what the answer is, but my prediction is you'll continue to dither, trying to find some verbal wiggle room rather than addressing the actual question, because that's the only hope you have. You know that earth DOES collapse, which means that earth DOES totter, which means the Bible is wrong, but to admit that means risking admitting everything in the Bible could be wrong, and you have too much of your ego invested in your Bible beliefs to allow yourself to admit that. You think you're clever, but we all know exactly what you're doing, and it's sad that someone who's apparently intelligent would work so hard to be so dishonest just to defend something he already knows is false.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99356 Oct 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ever said collapsing meant disappearing? The Twin Towers still exist in a different form, just like the earth that collapses in an earthquake when the soil liquefies beneath it. If the earth can collapse due to the soil liquefying beneath it during an earthquake, then the earth totters, which means the Bible is wrong.
Now, does the earth collapse when soil liquefies during an earthquake? Answer the question. You know what the answer is, but my prediction is you'll continue to dither, trying to find some verbal wiggle room rather than addressing the actual question, because that's the only hope you have. You know that earth DOES collapse, which means that earth DOES totter, which means the Bible is wrong, but to admit that means risking admitting everything in the Bible could be wrong, and you have too much of your ego invested in your Bible beliefs to allow yourself to admit that. You think you're clever, but we all know exactly what you're doing, and it's sad that someone who's apparently intelligent would work so hard to be so dishonest just to defend something he already knows is false.
El Sagrado Corazon Church in Barelas, an Albuquerque barrio, rebuilt their bell tower around a beam from the World Trade Center.

I have no idea how they pulled that off.
KAB

United States

#99357 Oct 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When soil liquefies during an earthquake, does the land above it collapse?
When a sinkhole occurs, does the land collapse?
Not to destruction. It remains land, just relocated.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99358 Oct 5, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Just look at all TV Preachers they are all scared of preaching the truth!They dont even compare to Billy Sunday or the Apostle Paul!LOL

Paul is a bit to gnostic for my tastes.

and I was talking about scholars, not tv preachers.
KAB

United States

#99359 Oct 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that there is genetic evidence for a human bottleneck for the Toba Catastrophe (1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs, 69,000 -77,000 years ago), but they somehow overlooked a MUCH MORE DEVASTATING collapse of humanity a mere 4,500 years ago!
Toba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...
Incidently, Noah and wife didn't have children post-flood, so the effective genetic bottleneck was only THREE breeding pairs of humans.
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?

As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99360 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?
As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.
Speaking of kazoos:

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Matthews, NC

#99361 Oct 5, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Why? Wikipedia is correct. It is you that is lying about human from non-human evolution. Not wikipedia.
Dogen used the wikipedia entry on human evolution. So if wikipedia is correct, then Dogen would be correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Thanks for confirming human evolution is correct!!

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) 11 min dirtclod 169,001
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 4 hr Chimney1 15
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Chimney1 19,802
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) Sun thetruth 6,221
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web