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

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

There are 152213 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#105488 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's talking about believers doubting, they already believed, they just doubted a "message." You are playing a dishonest game:
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 3:12 - Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Seems your bible has more negative things to say about non-believers than ... oh wait, that's right, your verse was talking about doubting humans, not those who don't believe. You love to play this dishonest game.
You are to be commended for providing an abundance of specific data this time, enough even to make it quite clear that you didn't read/ponder Acts 17 carefully. Those being targetted with the message were Jews, who had shown themselves to be among the least likely to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Besides, regardless of who they were, they were commended for their approach to handling info. They wanted to see and examine the data before they would believe.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105489 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
We can tell the difference by the bones. Just because they are called Omo 1 and 2 doesn't mean they are the same bones.
Is it intentional that your side so consistently draws attention to the wrong point? One could easily get the impression you're trying to avoid the real point. In this case it is the fact that neither set of bones rated a higher evaluation than appearing to be Homo Sapiens.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105490 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are to be commended for providing an abundance of specific data this time, enough even to make it quite clear that you didn't read/ponder Acts 17 carefully. Those being targetted with the message were Jews, who had shown themselves to be among the least likely to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Besides, regardless of who they were, they were commended for their approach to handling info. They wanted to see and examine the data before they would believe.
What is there to "ponder?" You are just restating what I said now, but prior this you inferred it meant non-believers. I do not like your dishonest games, and if your god was real, I doubt it would care for them either. Believing someone is a "prophet" or "messiah," whatever you want to all it, is vastly different than taking the existence of a god on blind faith. You could even be an atheist and believe that one of the people named Jesus in that time was a real prophet, and you'd still be an atheist because you would still not believe in the god. There are a ton of atheists who are religious, and many who believe in religious figures even. That's one of the points that escapes you, you cannot separate your beliefs, even though they are a collection of beliefs, not just one.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105491 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it intentional that your side so consistently draws attention to the wrong point? One could easily get the impression you're trying to avoid the real point. In this case it is the fact that neither set of bones rated a higher evaluation than appearing to be Homo Sapiens.
Now you are projecting, and rather poorly. You cannot even twist his reply so you pull the "you people" fallacy. Is Pluto a planet? No. Why? Because on further inspection we learned it doesn't fit our definition of a planet, so we stopped calling it what it wasn't. But it's still Pluto. Things are not named in the specific order they arise all the time, get over it, things get relabeled all the time, get over it. If you can't handle change, you are in the wrong universe.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105492 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just remember that god made Mary a virgin again after she had given birth...Ha!
:-)
Where did you get that info? This is a prime example for showing the value of providing, or at least researching confirming data before risking making asinine ass-ertions such as you did in this case. Such fundamental errors would be so easily avoided if you would just discipline yourself to seek confirming data before shooting off your keyboard.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105493 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about great apes??
We are related to them of course.
I am talking about lifeforms with a human-like form. Do you think great apes qualify?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105494 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about lifeforms with a human-like form. Do you think great apes qualify?
Now you have to be babbling, we are apes, so yes, they do qualify.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105495 Dec 29, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Where was I wrong.
JWs do not believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible and Christianity in general (John 16:12; Matthew 24:36). They only know what has been made known.

They do not believe they will be the only ones to inherit the earth (Acts 24:15)

One does not get disfellowshipped for having doubts about a teaching. Rather he is encouraged and assisted to continue studying, pondering, and prayfully meditating on the data, and beyond that, waiting on Jehovah for updates (Proverbs 2:1-5, Matthew 24:45-47).

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105496 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
JWs do not believe they have all the answers regarding the Bible and Christianity in general (John 16:12; Matthew 24:36). They only know what has been made known.
They do not believe they will be the only ones to inherit the earth (Acts 24:15)
One does not get disfellowshipped for having doubts about a teaching. Rather he is encouraged and assisted to continue studying, pondering, and prayfully meditating on the data, and beyond that, waiting on Jehovah for updates (Proverbs 2:1-5, Matthew 24:45-47).
No, one is only condemned for requiring evidence of your god claim ... the rest, as you pointed out, is made up as you go anyway.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105497 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Conclusive data? Do you mean verifiable? Verifiable data, one item, that's it. One verifiable piece of evidence that produces the same results for everyone, and you have something to supports your assertion. But ... nothing is ever "confirmed," if by confirmed you mean proven, just as nothing is ever disproven. There is no quantifiable way to predict how much evidence of the same caliber, in other words at least verifiable, it would take to convince anyone specifically, but if you can come up with one bit of such evidence, I will begin to take the claim seriously myself.
Is there conclusive data confirming that Earth is not cubic in shape? Additionally, is it conclusive that Earth has nothing visible and tangible (i.e. no solid member/structure) connecting it to anything beyond its atmosphere?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105498 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is there to "ponder?" You are just restating what I said now, but prior this you inferred it meant non-believers. I do not like your dishonest games, and if your god was real, I doubt it would care for them either. Believing someone is a "prophet" or "messiah," whatever you want to all it, is vastly different than taking the existence of a god on blind faith. You could even be an atheist and believe that one of the people named Jesus in that time was a real prophet, and you'd still be an atheist because you would still not believe in the god. There are a ton of atheists who are religious, and many who believe in religious figures even. That's one of the points that escapes you, you cannot separate your beliefs, even though they are a collection of beliefs, not just one.
Here's your statement,

"That's talking about believers doubting."

I just simply provided data confirming you were incorrect. It's as simple as that. The Jews were not believers in Jesus as the Messiah which is the truth the disciples were there teaching them.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105499 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are projecting, and rather poorly. You cannot even twist his reply so you pull the "you people" fallacy. Is Pluto a planet? No. Why? Because on further inspection we learned it doesn't fit our definition of a planet, so we stopped calling it what it wasn't. But it's still Pluto. Things are not named in the specific order they arise all the time, get over it, things get relabeled all the time, get over it. If you can't handle change, you are in the wrong universe.
You make a valid point. If you're acknowledging they may not have been the bones of modern humans, that's all that is necessary.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105500 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you have to be babbling, we are apes, so yes, they do qualify.
As you noted in a nearby post, what's in a label? We are structurally relatively similar. That's the important point.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105501 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, one is only condemned for requiring evidence of your god claim ... the rest, as you pointed out, is made up as you go anyway.
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105502 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there conclusive data confirming that Earth is not cubic in shape? Additionally, is it conclusive that Earth has nothing visible and tangible (i.e. no solid member/structure) connecting it to anything beyond its atmosphere?
No on both counts. Yet, you demand such a level of evidence regarding your Bible stories being false while not demanding anywhere near that level of evidence regarding them being true. Hypocrisy is the only way the Bible can be true.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105503 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your statement,
"That's talking about believers doubting."
I just simply provided data confirming you were incorrect. It's as simple as that. The Jews were not believers in Jesus as the Messiah which is the truth the disciples were there teaching them.
The disciples, and all the earliest Christians, were Jews. It's Paul who wanted to bring gentiles into the fold on a equal footing with the Jewish membership. You might want to learn something about your religion before trying to be an authority on it.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105504 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a valid point. If you're acknowledging they may not have been the bones of modern humans, that's all that is necessary.
A DNA test will not 100% prove you are your mother's child, but it can show that there is a 1:100,000,000 chance that someone other than the woman tested is your mother. You are saying that because it's not 100%, DNA tests are useless. Your premise, your problem. Stop expecting 100% conclusive certainty, as it's an unrealistic standard in ANY scientific field. Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of how science works should know this. That you continue to demand what's been many times explained to you as an irrationally high degree of confidence demonstrates that you either don't understand science and don't wish to, or you do understand and you're merely dishonest. Ignorant or dishonest? Your pick.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105505 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
Nobody has ever presented any. If you're calling hearsay decades after the fact by people with a vested interest in making themselves and their religion more important than they were at the time "evidence," your standard of evidence is laughable.
Existence is empirically demonstrable or else it is as good as non-existent.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105506 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we have evidence of the god claim.
You have evidence for God?? May we see it??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105507 Dec 29, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get that info? This is a prime example for showing the value of providing, or at least researching confirming data before risking making asinine ass-ertions such as you did in this case. Such fundamental errors would be so easily avoided if you would just discipline yourself to seek confirming data before shooting off your keyboard.
The Catholics came up with that little lie. They're pretty good at reading crap into scripture.

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) 39 min One way or another 209,804
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr NightSerf 20,264
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr It aint necessari... 45,553
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web