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

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

There are 160303 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.

forreal

Austwell, TX

#99947 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB disagrees that "unclean" is a kind. Maybe the two of you can get your shit together and figure out what you're talking about.
7 of each clean animals when in the Ark and 2 of each of the Unclean animals also when inside the Ark. Do you think God does know what kind is?LOL Never mind what he called them you all have change the names Like Lucy the Ape!making them sound like humans?LOL
forreal

Austwell, TX

#99948 Oct 11, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The same book advocates killing children for not minding their parents and killing unmarried women for having sexual relationships with men.
Also funny is that homosexual acts are only an abomination, which is the least class of sin in the Hebrew bible.
God never said let us make man according to his KInd?LOL Vote Republican and see your Kind look and kill like Hitler? Do you smell the Republican Nazi gas pssssssssssssssss already.
LowellGuy

United States

#99949 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my response to your original post in this thread,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
As you note earthquakes happen. Earthtotters do not. That's probably why there's no such word. The Bible's documented position (Ps. 104:5, Zech. 14:5) is that the earth can quake but will not totter. In context totter is being used to denote destructive elimination of Earth. You have done nothing to prove the Bible's position wrong.
The phenomenon is what matters. Your continued insistence that the label is the phenomenon will be acknowledged as your concession, liar.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#99950 Oct 11, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can say categorically that their views are not supported by science.
Yet you still sound like them, you even sound like Jerry Sandusky! More's the pity.
LowellGuy

United States

#99951 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I accept descent with modifications. My children are descended from me and they are modified (i.e. not identical to me). Also, if by "original population" you mean their kind then if the descendant can be bred but not with the "original population" then they are a new kind.
Then ring species ARE new kinds. That is the very definition of ring species. You can't use that definition but then say that the very thing you've defined is not that. So, now all you have to do is admit that ring species are an example of new kinds arising naturally, that you were wrong, that I was right, and that God is not required for new kinds to arise, thus meaning that you accept that all life could have arisen from a single root organism. See what happens when you answer questions? Logic is your enemy, which means the only way to avoid painting yourself into a corner is to avoid answering questions. But, your pride took over and you couldn't keep from answering. Now you've gone and refuted the core requirement of creationism: kinds cannot arise naturally. Thanks for playing.
forreal

Austwell, TX

#99952 Oct 11, 2012
So chinese came from Chow Chows according to their kind?LOL So The anglos up north came from Polar Bears according to their kind? Africans came from Apes and monkies according to their kind?LOL Germans came from german shepards according to their kind? Mexicans came from Chihuhuas according to their kind? The Engish people came from Bull dogs according to their kind? Indians in america came from Deers acording to their kind?LOLOLOLOLOL
forreal

Austwell, TX

#99953 Oct 11, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you still sound like them, you even sound like Jerry Sandusky! More's the pity.
I see you have a Halo today?LOLOLOLOL
KAB

United States

#99954 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it the default/commonly held position?
You keep avoiding the root, which is that you start at the null hypothesis and work away from it, rather than working from a positive claim and working toward the negative.
You understand nothing of logic, or else you are a liar. If the former, educate yourself. If the latter, stop lying, liar.
I don't get entangled in labels/terminology. It's content that counts. In this case, you determine what you want answered then start with a hypothesis appropriate to answering the question and test it with data. Now do you have a question you want answered based on data?
KAB

United States

#99955 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
A stupid question, as water, not dirt, is the main constituent of our bodies. Were we of dirt origins, should we not expect more in the way of silicon in our bodies? Yet, silicon is, at most, a trace element in our bodies. Should we not expect organisms from the water to have high water contents? For that matter, why isn't a shark's water content much different than ours? Or a whale's?
Oh, don't think I haven't noticed all the posts you've been answering with glib onwe-liners that fail to address the questions at hand. Your desperation is palpable.
The Bible's human creation description isn't very detailed. In particular, the chemical element proportions aren't given.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99956 Oct 11, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>7 of each clean animals when in the Ark and 2 of each of the Unclean animals also when inside the Ark. Do you think God does know what kind is?LOL Never mind what he called them you all have change the names Like Lucy the Ape!making them sound like humans?LOL

I give god credit for being smarter than this.

You, not so much.

Lucy is not claimed to be a modern human, only an early transitional between our last common ancestor with chimps and modern humans.

At least know what the scientific claim is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99957 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then ring species ARE new kinds. That is the very definition of ring species. You can't use that definition but then say that the very thing you've defined is not that. So, now all you have to do is admit that ring species are an example of new kinds arising naturally, that you were wrong, that I was right, and that God is not required for new kinds to arise, thus meaning that you accept that all life could have arisen from a single root organism. See what happens when you answer questions? Logic is your enemy, which means the only way to avoid painting yourself into a corner is to avoid answering questions. But, your pride took over and you couldn't keep from answering. Now you've gone and refuted the core requirement of creationism: kinds cannot arise naturally. Thanks for playing.

KABs theme song

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with
sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle

Razzle dazzle 'em
Back in the days of old Methusulah
Everyone loves the big bamboozulah
Give 'em the old three ring circus

Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble
Find more similar lyrics on http://mp3lyrics.com/JDgpGo into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder

They let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you got a romance
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle

Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act that's unassailable
They'll wait a year till you're available
Give 'em the old wobble bammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcere you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you got no talents?
Razzle dazzle 'em
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star

http://www.mp3lyrics.org/s/shirley-bassey/raz...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99958 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get entangled in labels/terminology. It's content that counts. In this case, you determine what you want answered then start with a hypothesis appropriate to answering the question and test it with data. Now do you have a question you want answered based on data?

Based on the data are you a bald faced liar?

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with
sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise.....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99959 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible's human creation description isn't very detailed. In particular, the chemical element proportions aren't given.

Maybe,.....


Just maybe,.......

That is because.....







THE BIBLE ISN'T A SCIENCE BOOK!!!!!!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#99960 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's clear is that you have been clear on almost nothing.
There we go!

KAB YOU ARE A LIAR

All we've seen is that you do not understand data and the abstracts that go with it. And are too lazy to click to a link to f.i. an excell sheet.

The thought process seems to be "since my views are rooted in opinion and spin and not fact, therefore everyone else's views have to be as well"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99961 Oct 11, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>7 of each clean animals when in the Ark and 2 of each of the Unclean animals also when inside the Ark. Do you think God does know what kind is?
Actually I'm not sure if he does. He certainly didn't bother to tell the creationists what kind is.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99962 Oct 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible's human creation description isn't very detailed.
NoooooSHIT, Sherlock!
KAB

United States

#99963 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're trying to conflate abiogenesis and evolution. Dishonest and/or ignorant. You pick which it is.
Again, is it more likely that extremely unusual chemical reactions (which have been demonstrated to be possible) occurred naturally over the course of hundreds of millions of years, or that a magical wizard for which there is no evidence poofed life into existence? Is it more likely that extremely unusual genetic incidents (which have been demonstrated to be possible) occurred naturally over the course of billions of years, or that a magical wizard for which there is no evidence poofed life into existence?
Just answer the damn question, you obfuscating liar.
Neither. I see you're still practicing your stock-in-trade fallacious False Dichotomy approach to analysis. Try just asking questions without pre-restricting the answer set.
KAB

United States

#99964 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And your answer was that people were misusing the Bible. I want you to tell us all how you know they were misusing the Bible and, by extension, how you know you're not misusing the Bible. You're about to enter a solipsistic argument. Prepare yourself, because this is YOUR argument.
Do you agree that there are religious organizations which claim to be in harmony with the Bible?
KAB

United States

#99965 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know they were misusing the Bible, and how do you know you're not? Stop avoiding a direct answer to the question. You clearly think you're able to tell the difference. Tell us how you do this. Anybody else want to wager that KAB not only doesn't understand the null hypothesis, but doesn't understand solipsism either?
Given that we start with someone who thinks he is following the Bible, I take what that one is thinking/doing/teaching, compare it with what the Bible documents/teaches/directs, and if they don't match it's a misuse (Matthew 7:21-23).
KAB

United States

#99966 Oct 11, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If your expertise in geology is anything like your expertise in fluid dynamics, oceanography, seismology, geology, biology, genetics, biochemistry...
How would you know if your understanding of any of these subjects was incorrect?
I would study the specific matter under consideration.

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) 13 min Dogen 61,351
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Dogen 28,320
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 30 min Dogen 2,687
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min Aura Mytha 220,637
Curious dilemma about DNA 7 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
More from around the web