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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
101,701 - 101,720 of 135,623 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103698
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am pretty sure you are proof that God has a sense of humor. A somewhat sick sense, but one of humor none the less.
I hope this don't jamiaca you mad little boy.
WTF?
attakkdog

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103699
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Your History only goes as far as the 1840s!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
MY history only goes back to 1965.
Please explain the '1840's comment...?
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103700
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no dispute if you acknowledge that Cain and many others since him have acted against Yahweh's will. In fact, since we all sin, we all commit acts against his will even if unintentionally so. However, that won't keep him from eventually achieving his purpose for a world of only perfectly "behaved" individuals (Rev. 21:3,4).
Look, it would be false of me to say that there is no sin, or that I have no sin.

I AM A SINFUL MOTHER TRUCKER! I WILL GO TO HELL; ONLY JESU(S) CAN SAVE ME.

However it is necessary to question the nature of "sin", and what sin actually is; because the moment you suggest that anything is possible outside the will of God... you are pretty much in trouble.

Sin is... not nice; but I cant say that it is "against" the Will of God.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103701
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If "you can't disprove it, then that's good enough" is your standard, where do you stand on Pegasus, unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins, sprites, naiads, ogres, orcs, hobbits, wizards, gorgons, satyrs, krakens, gryphons, leprechauns, sasquatch/yeti, Loch Ness monster, chupacabra, and ghosts?
1 – Prove that “natural selection” exists, in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.

2 - What it is exactly and how that was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

3 - The mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did, how it used them, when it used them, and how all this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103702
Dec 6, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a question for you KAB, if you use Pi rounded to one digit, what can you successfully build using that number?
This is just a warm-up. If you get it right I have a more difficult one for you.
Oh non-mathematically saavy Doc, Bob wants to know if you think nothing could be suceessfully built using an approximation for Pi?
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103703
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, it would be false of me to say that there is no sin, or that I have no sin.
I AM A SINFUL MOTHER TRUCKER! I WILL GO TO HELL; ONLY JESU(S) CAN SAVE ME.
However it is necessary to question the nature of "sin", and what sin actually is; because the moment you suggest that anything is possible outside the will of God... you are pretty much in trouble.
Sin is... not nice; but I cant say that it is "against" the Will of God.
Until you can say that sin is against the will of God you will remain stuck in a belief system which is readily demonstrable as being unbiblical (2 Tim. 3:16).

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103704
Dec 6, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing...
Yep. That's pretty much it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103705
Dec 6, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you can say that sin is against the will of God you will remain stuck in a belief system which is readily demonstrable as being unbiblical (2 Tim. 3:16).
And how do you know that someone's "sins" are something other than your God's will?

I'm guessing your answer will be "I'm guessing." Because that's all you CAN do. You don't know that your God exists, you don't know what your God (if it exists) thinks, and you don't know what that God's will is. A book is just a book.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103706
Dec 6, 2012
 
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1 – Prove that “natural selection” exists, in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.
2 - What it is exactly and how that was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
3 - The mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did, how it used them, when it used them, and how all this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
You didn't answer the question.

If "if you can't disprove it, then that's good enough reason to believe it" is your standard, then do you believe in leprechauns, fairies, pixies, naiads, bigfoot, and other "mythical" beasts?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103707
Dec 6, 2012
 
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1 – Prove that “natural selection” exists, in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.
"Natural selection" exists as a concept, a description of phenomena. Concepts exist in the mind. It exists as much as 4 exists. Do you deny 4?
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
2 - What it is exactly and how that was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
Since you don't understand the problem with question 1, you don't understand why question 2 is meaningless.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
3 - The mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did, how it used them, when it used them, and how all this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
Because you don't understand the problem with question 1, you don't understand why question 3 is meaningless.

Your ignorance is not an advantage in this discussion.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103708
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you know that someone's "sins" are something other than your God's will?
I'm guessing your answer will be "I'm guessing." Because that's all you CAN do. You don't know that your God exists, you don't know what your God (if it exists) thinks, and you don't know what that God's will is. A book is just a book.
No guessing necessary.
My God is represented by the Bible. The relationship it defines between sin and God's will is clearly discernible.
Some books contain very valuable information.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103709
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you can say that sin is against the will of God you will remain stuck in a belief system which is readily demonstrable as being unbiblical (2 Tim. 3:16).
but if I can act against the will of "God" then how is he God of me?

that God you refer to is a useless as snow ball in hell.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103710
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Natural selection" exists as a concept, a description of phenomena. Concepts exist in the mind. It exists as much as 4 exists. Do you deny 4?
<quoted text>
Since you don't understand the problem with question 1, you don't understand why question 2 is meaningless.
<quoted text>
Because you don't understand the problem with question 1, you don't understand why question 3 is meaningless.
Your ignorance is not an advantage in this discussion.
Since its all in your mind; then keep it there!

Dont mess up other people's thought processes with what YOU think is right and real?

F8&^K off with your conceptions; we can form our own!
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103711
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question.
If "if you can't disprove it, then that's good enough reason to believe it" is your standard, then do you believe in leprechauns, fairies, pixies, naiads, bigfoot, and other "mythical" beasts?
Why should I not suspect they may be real? I have no evidence to the contrary.

Its pure intellectual dishonesty why you dont believe in centaurs and mermaids etc; because you do believe in half fish-half tetrapod and such stuff.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103712
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1 – Prove that “natural selection” exists, in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.
2 - What it is exactly and how that was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
3 - The mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did, how it used them, when it used them, and how all this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
If there was a population of a moth species having comparable light and dark color variants which existed along with bird species which were natural predators of those moths and in an environment of predominantly light colored surfaces, the proportion of light-to-dark moths would increase. If the environment then changed to predominantly dark colored surfaces the population proportion would reverse. What label would you likely put on the phenomenon which had taken place?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103713
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1 – Prove that “natural selection” exists, in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method.
2 - What it is exactly and how that was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
3 - The mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did, how it used them, when it used them, and how all this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.
Natural selection is life. What survives and breeds passes on it's genes. What doesn't doesn't.

All the young of a species are slightly different (That's random).
Most die (Watch any nature film).
Some are going to be better at surviving in their particular environment than others. They're the ones most likely to survive and so pass on their genes. This results in a species becoming more adapted to that environment.
In a different environment different young might survive and passing on different genes changing the species as it adapts to different conditions.

There are a vast number of different strategies for survival. Some survive by being bigger or faster. Other's by being smaller and quieter. Worms and slugs thrive by living out of sight or being distasteful to eat. All that matters is that some survive and breed.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103714
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
but if I can act against the will of "God" then how is he God of me?
that God you refer to is a useless as snow ball in hell.
Not according to Webster. You are trying to stuff God into a box of your own making. Meanwhile, he defines himself clearly in the Bible. All you have to do is accept him at his own (instead of your own) word.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103715
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to Webster. You are trying to stuff God into a box of your own making. Meanwhile, he defines himself clearly in the Bible. All you have to do is accept him at his own (instead of your own) word.
OK. At His own Divine Word, I accept God as someone who orders men to massacre a nation down including mothers and little boys, sparing only the yummy young virgins for the pleasure of those who are willing to cut the throats of the victims in his name with a dirty knife.

I suppose that sparing yummy virgins for the pleasure of the conquerors somehow make him more moral than the Nazis.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103716
Dec 6, 2012
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. At His own Divine Word, I accept God as someone who orders men to massacre a nation down including mothers and little boys, sparing only the yummy young virgins for the pleasure of those who are willing to cut the throats of the victims in his name with a dirty knife.
I suppose that sparing yummy virgins for the pleasure of the conquerors somehow make him more moral than the Nazis.
When you provide a specific reference, I'll have a specific response.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103717
Dec 6, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to Webster. You are trying to stuff God into a box of your own making. Meanwhile, he defines himself clearly in the Bible. All you have to do is accept him at his own (instead of your own) word.
You and Webster can kiss my corns!

A thing is what it does: So the God who is Omnipotent Will Behave Omnipotently... "by their fruits you shall know them".[Jesu]

As such, the God who is powerful sometimes is only sometimes god; which I of course have no use for.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••