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

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

There are 161437 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99423 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah took what was necessary to generate life as it exists today. You can be sure he didn't take every specific variant of canine.
The only thing we can be sure of is you're stonewalling for stupidity.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99424 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It remains a REAL discontinuity until/unless it is demonstrated under naturally occurring circumstances. Intelligent not naturally occurring physical and chemical manipulation accomplished what is reported in your references.
Is it possible for such a thing to occur naturally? If it is possible, then your argument is moot. If it is not possible, explain why it is not possible.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99425 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As a factor in my life, the Bible keeps me from locking up people unless its standard of justice is met. One person's prediction, regardless of track record, is not it.
Irrelevant. It's a FUCKING HYPOTHETICAL. Answer the question.

If I have a 100% accurate track record predicting child molesters, and I have successfully predicted 1 million of them, should the police lock you up and you be forced to prove your innocence if I declare you a child molester? Or, should my claim have to be demonstrated true with evidence, even though I have such an impeccable track record? The police act because I'm right every time. Their acceptance of my 100% accuracy is why they lock people up on my say-so, just like your acceptance of the Bible's 100% accuracy is why you act based on its teachings. You say the Bible should be accepted as true throughout because it's been true with every testable claim, just as I have been with my testable claims about child molesters. So, in this purely hypothetical situation, normal juris prudence notwithstanding, should you be locked up and forced to prove your innocence?

If you hold your Bible to a different standard than the hypothetical police hold me, explain the difference. Nobody here, I'm sure, sees the difference. As I said, normal juris prudence doesn't apply here. It's HYPOTHETICAL.

I know why you keep avoiding the yes/no answer, and so do you. It forces you to admit that the burden of proof rests on the believer to prove the Bible's claims, NOT on everybody else to disprove them. But, because you've now invested yourself into this argument, you can't back out and admit you were wrong, and you can't admit that the Bible shouldn't be accepted as 100% true because that's your supposed justification for your belief. You have such weak faith that to admit that the Bible can and, actually, IS wrong about anything anywhere ever is anathema to you.

You are a weak, small, pathetic little man with a mere facade of faith and a huge wellspring of doubt that he fears more than just about anything in the world. Doubt is a good thing. It demonstrates critical thinking. That you fear it so much says a lot.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99426 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least somebody here astutely perceives the big picture. Don't count on that Earth age differential tho. Also your reference to the "mainline scientific community" is an important distinction. Not all scientists side with that mainline.
This reminds me of a saying...

"You know what they call alternative medicine that works? MEDICINE."

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99427 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, resolution doesn't make data disappear, but it can make it impossible to distinguish from its surroundings (the technical word is resolve).
So, we can detect rainfalls and floods of mere days from millions of years ago, but we can't detect a global year-long flood from just 4500 years ago? I just want you to tell us why the evidence would exist from millions of years ago but not 4500, and why we can detect such scant water from so long ago but not such huge quantities from so very recently.

Is the simplest explanation incompetence or is it that such a flood never occurred?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99428 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least somebody here astutely perceives the big picture. Don't count on that Earth age differential tho. Also your reference to the "mainline scientific community" is an important distinction. Not all scientists side with that mainline.
That's true, though most of the one in seven hundred who don't have been to 'divinity' school.
forreal

United States

#99429 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul is a bit to gnostic for my tastes.
and I was talking about scholars, not tv preachers.
are you saying that bible scholars are better than St Paul?LOL
forreal

United States

#99430 Oct 6, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So whence came all of today's species (SPECIES) of canine come from?
Evolution?
In, what, 4,000-odd years?
Wow, that's a new species every few generations!
Have you ever seen a Beefalo? thats not evolution its crossbreeding?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99431 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
During the immediate time period they were far too busy treading water to record what was happening!

Funny dodge. But still a dodge.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99432 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Roughly a year.

All of the flood evidence in the geological record, that I am aware of, were events of less than a year duration.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99433 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes more sense when you think carefully about the possibilities given the data we do have, a process which seems completely foreign to you.

translation: It's my party and I can rationalize if I want to.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#99434 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah took what was necessary to generate life as it exists today. You can be sure he didn't take every specific variant of canine.
Produce the DATA, research and empirical evidence that demonstrates that Noah was real and actually lived 4400 years ago.

What?

What's that"

You can't?

Because you don't have any?

Oh, so your whole statement above is just sh!t that you made up.

IOW this statement of yours is just pure hypocrisy:
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>it's data that's most welcome, not opinions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99435 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you state, which is worth about as much as the effort it took you to state it.
Most floods are "washing-down" or rapidly inrushing type.

Just as an upwelling flood would be.

There is nothing special about the mythical flood of genesis except it's magnitude.

In other words you are using the 'Special Pleading' fallacy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99436 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Common knowledge is not always correct. I think it's related to the whole common sense thing.

Dodge.

For someone just claiming to be genuine you are back to being disingenuous awful quickly.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#99437 Oct 6, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>are you saying that bible scholars are better than St Paul?LOL
Of course they are. They have 2000+ years worth of literature, history, historical records, archaeology, science, logic and reason to work with that Paul did not.

Further, they don't generally go around making stuff up as they go along ... as Paul seems to have done on occasion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99438 Oct 6, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Common knowledge is not the same as common sense. Common knowledge is when people are commonly educated about something. Common sense is what people call their ignorant preconceived notions so they don't have to think about if they have a clue.

Yes, they are closer to being antonyms than synonyms.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99439 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It remains a REAL discontinuity until/unless it is demonstrated under naturally occurring circumstances. Intelligent not naturally occurring physical and chemical manipulation accomplished what is reported in your references.

I don't think you are understanding what happened in the experiment. They simply evoked what was already IN the DNA.

I a baby delivered by C-section no a baby because the delivery was intelligent and not naturally occurring???

This is analogous to what you are attempting to argue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99440 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just provide specific points (excerpts) as appropriate.

Providing excerpts from a book with a lot of information in it is no substitute for reading the book. You seem to want to get the least amount of education you can to get by with. Again, this appears to lack a genuine appreciation for knowledge.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99441 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, resolution doesn't make data disappear, but it can make it impossible to distinguish from its surroundings (the technical word is resolve).

Flood data has less than a 1 year resolution. Unless there are floods in the fossil record that are greater than a year.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99442 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least somebody here astutely perceives the big picture. Don't count on that Earth age differential tho. Also your reference to the "mainline scientific community" is an important distinction. Not all scientists side with that mainline.

This is not a lie, but very nearly so. 99% of all scientists are on the "mainline side". Only "scientists" that are fundys (either Islamic or Christian) are on the other side. That would seem to discount their opinion as they have an agenda, yes?

When was the last time you had 100% of anybody agreeing on anything?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Aura Mytha 69,957
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 5 hr Subduction Zone 95
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 30,111
G-d versus Evolution? 6 hr 15th Dalai Lama 12
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr yehoshooah adam 3,779
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 16 hr Subduction Zone 1,969
Where was the cradle of life located? 19 hr Subduction Zone 9
More from around the web