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
103,421 - 103,440 of 134,454 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105429
Dec 28, 2012
 
.
KAB writes:
"If I missed even one valid sample here, please reference the specific and I will consider it. It MUST be data itself, not assertions. Are you really not seeing the forest for the trees here?

How many people on this forum, representing the skeptic side, have access to original data from scientific investigations??

To my knowledge almost all of it is behind paywalls on the science journals.

Also one must realize that the JW's (as KAB is) believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible, and Christianity in general, and believe THEY and only THEY will inherit the earth when 'The End Times' come.

I have had the pleasure of talking to a number of them and they, without exception, do not accept ANYTHING that controverts the teachings of the 'Governing Body'. The 'Governing Body' is where their instructions on what to believe and how to interprete scripture come from...if they don't agree with these instructions on what to believe they are 'disfellowshipped and considered apostate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105430
Dec 28, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your side that keeps going on about the flood. I am just responding to challenges and inquiries, yours for example. Why do you keep going on about this?
I accept the other flood, the world wide one which has not been debunked even after considerable concerted effort. Did you lose that one in one way or another while formulating your inquiry? No matter, when overly hasty, one can lose either way.
As usual you are wrong. Our side is not the one that keeps going on about the flood. There was no flood. Why would we keep going on about it if some idiot was not always bringing up the subject.

And what "other flood"? There was not other flood. There is no recorded time when all of the Earth was covered with water. Not recently, and not even on a geologic time scale. Now the Earth may have been completely covered with water, but since geologic information gets continually every more broken up as we go back we cannot say that for sure the whole Earth was ever covered with water. It may have been very early on in Earth's history but there is not and cannot be evidence of this.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105431
Dec 28, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tens of thousands of failed debunkings are inconclusive evidence that the Bible is true.
Even if the debunking failed, that's still not evidence of all the claims in the bible, it's not even evidence of any parts of the bible being correct. Greece is a real place, does that mean Zeus is real?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105432
Dec 28, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm waiting for your first specific contradiction confirming data example and not expecting to ever see one.
You ignore everything that contradicts your weak beliefs.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105433
Dec 29, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame excuse, we aren't talking about people asking for cars and such, we're talking about people asking for something that saves their lives, as evidence for prayer.
THere you go again wanting scientific evidence for the supernatural when by definition science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the rest of your comment, meh. They post lots and lots of links, references to scientific papers and such, their support means something, your opinions do not.
That is the fallacy from authority. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on concensis. It stands or falls on it's adherance to the scientific method. Concensis means individuals are like minded. It does not mean they are not a group of idiots. Your team in this forum is a good example.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105434
Dec 29, 2012
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB, do you mean that God doesn't want macumazahn's arm to get healed?
What an unloving God!
And God doesn't want macumazahn to witness to the world about the power of prayer?
What an irrational God!
And I thought God was both loving and rational!
I love it when atheists think that GOD must adhere to what they think he should be...hahahahaha!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105435
Dec 29, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
God wants Mac's arm healed (Revelation 21:3,4), but now is not the time (2 Peter 3:8-16).
There are plenty of Jehovah's worshippers witnessing to the world about the power of prayer. It seems he doesn't get much that's really helpful from others, misinformation, misunderstanding, misrepresentation.
But, aren't "miraculous" healings sometimes the turning point for people to become full-fledged believers? It's certainly not only people who are already believers who get healed by God, is it? If so, do you have evidence to support this? If you can prove that ANYBODY has been healed by God, you can then prove who has and has not been healed by God, and you can then demonstrate which kinds of people do and don't get healed by God. You've got a lot of work ahead of you. No time to fuss around on here if you're going to show us who's boss!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105436
Dec 29, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I love it when atheists think that GOD must adhere to what they think he should be...hahahahaha!
As opposed to you, who thinks that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE must adhere to what you think it should be.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105437
Dec 29, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just provide the best example you know from the tens of thousands of purported Bible errors, and let's see if my statement is just a statement. Have you noticed how I always ask for data, and your side seldom provides any, and your side occasionally asks for data, and I always provide what I can find? That tells you a lot right there.
If you would like to present your list of the "tens of thousands of purported Bible errors" I'm sure there are many who would like to see what they are and how the allegations have been diffused. Until then, would you like to continue to discuss the complete lack of evidence of a great flood? 2300 BCE: No geological evidence, no mass extinctions, no glacial record of a deluge, no tree ring data that indicates massive precipitation, no interruption in the archaeological record,... Shall I go on? I think not. The Global Flood did not happen.

Again and still, it is YOU who are tasked with providing the data that you say "the Darwin Crowd" lacks. It's well past time for you to stop just making statements and habitually asking for more data to ignore.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105438
Dec 29, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I love it when atheists think that GOD must adhere to what they think he should be...hahahahaha!
Do you love it when Christians do?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105439
Dec 29, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
I love it when atheists think that GOD must adhere to what they think he should be...hahahahaha!
I didn't say God should be loving and rational,
the Bible said God was loving and rational,
and here I thought the Bible was supposed to be the word of God.

Anyway, how did I get a label slapped on me?
Is anyone who disagrees with you an atheist?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105440
Dec 29, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>THere you go again wanting scientific evidence for the supernatural when by definition science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.<quoted text>That is the fallacy from authority. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on concensis. It stands or falls on it's adherance to the scientific method. Concensis means individuals are like minded. It does not mean they are not a group of idiots. Your team in this forum is a good example.
"fallacy from authority" .... you don't even know what fallacies are what, much less when they apply. No, what I stated is not a fallacy as it is an admittance to not having as many answers in some things that others do have answers to. You are conflating honesty with fallacy.

As for your assertions about evolution, you have failed to provide any evidence, no links, no references, that support it. You cannot show a more logical, or beneficial, direction in what the evidence suggests.

Also, it's consensus. Learn to spellcheck if you cannot spell. Evolution does not hinge on consensus, it is simply the best explanation of the evidence. We know things evolve from other fields of study, and that fact also explains the fossil record and genetic evidence we have collected. Unless you can provide something that not only explains all these things, but also offers a real and tangible benefit to humanity, evolution is the only theory that stands for the diversity of life.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105441
Dec 29, 2012
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
Q: What's the difference between "He could, but he won't", and "He can't"?
A: Nothin'.
Perhaps that explains all the instances of assertions your side makes for which confirming data is requested, and you indicate that you could provide it but you won't. What's actually meant is you can't? Am I getting this right? Just between you and me, I think you're just lying about the "could" part.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105442
Dec 29, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
.
When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.
"It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans," says geologist Frank Brown, a co-author of the study and dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences.
The journal Nature is publishing the study in its Thursday Feb. 17, 2005, issue. Brown conducted the research with geologist and geochronologist Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York State’s Stony Brook University. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/...
Perhaps you missed this important statement from your reference,

"Anthropologists said they looked very different in their evolutionary status," Brown recalls. "Omo I appeared to be essentially modern Homo sapiens, and Omo II appeared to be more primitive."

"Appeared to be" means maybe they aren't. Remember, even today we are not the only human-like forms inhabiting the planet.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105443
Dec 29, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has debunked alien abductions, either. You believe in those?
I don't know that your assertion is true, but assuming it is I wouldn't believe in them without confirming data, either physical or from a demonstrated reliable source.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105444
Dec 29, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is loss of limb a malady?
According to Webster's Online it doesn't seem so.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105445
Dec 29, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that your assertion is true, but assuming it is I wouldn't believe in them without confirming data, either physical or from a demonstrated reliable source.
They have way more of that than you have for your religious nonsense. They have "alien implants" and "alien spacecraft" photographs, and millions of eye witnesses and even "abductees." You bible is the equivalent of less than 1% of their evidence.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105446
Dec 29, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
.
KAB writes:
"If I missed even one valid sample here, please reference the specific and I will consider it. It MUST be data itself, not assertions. Are you really not seeing the forest for the trees here?
How many people on this forum, representing the skeptic side, have access to original data from scientific investigations??
To my knowledge almost all of it is behind paywalls on the science journals.
Also one must realize that the JW's (as KAB is) believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible, and Christianity in general, and believe THEY and only THEY will inherit the earth when 'The End Times' come.
I have had the pleasure of talking to a number of them and they, without exception, do not accept ANYTHING that controverts the teachings of the 'Governing Body'. The 'Governing Body' is where their instructions on what to believe and how to interprete scripture come from...if they don't agree with these instructions on what to believe they are 'disfellowshipped and considered apostate.
You make 3 assertions regarding JWs. You are wrong on all counts. If you want the correct positions visit jw.org .
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105447
Dec 29, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual you are wrong. Our side is not the one that keeps going on about the flood. There was no flood. Why would we keep going on about it if some idiot was not always bringing up the subject.
And what "other flood"? There was not other flood. There is no recorded time when all of the Earth was covered with water. Not recently, and not even on a geologic time scale. Now the Earth may have been completely covered with water, but since geologic information gets continually every more broken up as we go back we cannot say that for sure the whole Earth was ever covered with water. It may have been very early on in Earth's history but there is not and cannot be evidence of this.
I have NEVER launched a round of Noachian flood consideration in this forum. Now prove otherwise. You have about 2 years of my documented presence here on record at your disposal. Have at it, but you won't. You didn't even consider the data. You just characteristically used dataless reasoning, leading you to a characteristically incorrect conclusion. When will your side break the mold?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105448
Dec 29, 2012
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But, aren't "miraculous" healings sometimes the turning point for people to become full-fledged believers? It's certainly not only people who are already believers who get healed by God, is it? If so, do you have evidence to support this? If you can prove that ANYBODY has been healed by God, you can then prove who has and has not been healed by God, and you can then demonstrate which kinds of people do and don't get healed by God. You've got a lot of work ahead of you. No time to fuss around on here if you're going to show us who's boss!
More often than not, miraculous healings are a turning point to the dark side (Matthew 7:21-23). Nonbelievers have sometimes been healed (2 Kings 5:1-14). Your eagerness to have me leave this forum duly noted. Why is that, do you think? Is my keeping data and attention to it constantly in the forefront here cramping the normal worthless dataless "shoot your keyboard off the top of your head" style of forums like this?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 5 min wondering 1,720
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... 9 min wondering 9
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min wondering 112,975
Big Bang? 24 min wondering 289
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 26 min wondering 146
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 1 hr wondering 330
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr wondering 171,487
•••
•••