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

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

There are 164261 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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107170 Jan 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I sometimes wonder where some of you leave their brain while posting.
So if figuring out the how of observed and measured phenomena requires intelligence, as would proper understanding and problem solving in replicating nature...are you then implying that 'creotards' are (playing)dumb per definition.
I thought the church had a problem with people loosing their faith not whether g-d's gift of freewill and intelligence was used.
Nor that stupid was a requirement for believe.
In fact you are using the god idea of an omniscient god.
Bit of a difference with clay-puppet making YHWH that asks where they hid themselves and what they were up to.
That get's very different interpretations depending on whether you are a christian or not.
However having billions of years and 10^86 options of anything to happen, the odds are that g-d simply found a niche.
Aah look at all those fallacies and youre even implying thing which i didnt say.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107171 Jan 13, 2013
The first supposition is that NATURE is GOD.
So nature getting it wrong 99% of the time with convergent evolution would be GOD failing.

The second one would be the GOD as FIRST CAUSE that needs to move forever back in time to explain phenomena unless we live in a virtual world, blinking on and of without us ever noticing.

Well call me simple but i would equate NATURE with FIRST CAUSE, and god a simple verb or stopgap when we are lost for an explanation.

ID or the clockmaker is the very notion developed because some tricky points were not expained yet.
The gaps so to say.

YHWH is a local and tribal god. I know that Paul and Augustine made a mess of that idea, but that's the simple fact too.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107172 Jan 13, 2013
Debating evolutionists are fruitless for they are blind to the truth but still we debat. Debating creationists are also fruitless because they have the truth. If i die and I was wrong thats it but if an atheist dies and was wrong what then?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107173 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> Aah look at all those fallacies and youre even implying thing which i didnt say.
That's just to wind you up and frankly using the same tricks we read here page after page from the creo's.

But read back a bit and you will find that i question your assumptions.

It's one thing to deal with KAB and to even discuss jewish versions of the flood narrative, since we agreed on taking a part of the bible that could be explored, without ending up in a swamp.
(We did nevertheless. DATA has become a character all by itself.) But the story becomes entirely different if we start from different vantage points. See Mazhere and the fall f.i.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107174 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
Debating evolutionists are fruitless for they are blind to the truth but still we debat. Debating creationists are also fruitless because they have the truth. If i die and I was wrong thats it but if an atheist dies and was wrong what then?
Define truth.(I'lld rather you do not, i still recall about 500 pages on it)
And why would only creationists have that 'truth'.
Talk about fallacies. This would be the one about evolution negating faith. Or having a religion being incompatible with adhering to evolution.

So you die, and they die and that's it.
Waiting for god to come along and congratulate them both for giving it a good try but nevertheless ending up in the same place and to then dissolve in a cloud of probabilities...or what?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107175 Jan 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just to wind you up and frankly using the same tricks we read here page after page from the creo's.
But read back a bit and you will find that i question your assumptions.
It's one thing to deal with KAB and to even discuss jewish versions of the flood narrative, since we agreed on taking a part of the bible that could be explored, without ending up in a swamp.
(We did nevertheless. DATA has become a character all by itself.) But the story becomes entirely different if we start from different vantage points. See Mazhere and the fall f.i.
You do know that I never mentioned the flood and Yes that comment was wind up but You Evo's also use that so lets make it fair. And you should read up the list of fallacies in logical thinming and yes I use them too. So why do you want to talk about the flood?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107176 Jan 13, 2013
It doesn't take a creationist to seriously question evolution. Why have there been so many assumptions in the case of evolution and zero evidence (because what you claim to be evidence is in fact your interpretation of the exact same evidence creationists look at) Why does the theory of evolution change so much but true creationists that believe in the bible stick to their story. Nieche is the only atheist that was worth respect. He said that life itself is will to power, nothing else matters. Now even though he didn't believe in God he saw that man was LOST yet some atheists still believe that there is hope for humanity . People assume creationists just quote creationists and that they are stupid.Why have there been so many hoaxes of evidence for evolution, because atheists want to believe what they believe. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107177 Jan 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Define truth.(I'lld rather you do not, i still recall about 500 pages on it)
And why would only creationists have that 'truth'.
Talk about fallacies. This would be the one about evolution negating faith. Or having a religion being incompatible with adhering to evolution.
So you die, and they die and that's it.
Waiting for god to come along and congratulate them both for giving it a good try but nevertheless ending up in the same place and to then dissolve in a cloud of probabilities...or what?
I told you that I use fallacies but listen my first 2 lines where subjective because even though you debate me you will never change my mind but even though I debate you I will never change your mind.
But if what you believe is right we both die and become ground. Fine we're even. But let's say we both kick the bucket now and I am right, I won't see you in hell because its dark there and pain is everywhere. That is OBJECTIVE because I am not saying that you theory is wrong but there's a chance that you'll have eternal regret. Me on the other hand it can end positive or i become dirt.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107178 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> You do know that I never mentioned the flood and Yes that comment was wind up but You Evo's also use that so lets make it fair. And you should read up the list of fallacies in logical thinming and yes I use them too. So why do you want to talk about the flood?
HUH? I must be tired since i've been reading and discussing Margoliouth on the origins of Islam, for the last 6 hours.
What i meant to convey was:
If you read way back in this thread you will find that this is not a willy nilly discussion, but that the flood narrative unanimously was chosen to be explored. Simply put: can it scientifically be proven or disproven.
So the fall, creoparadigms and such events are not part of the original parameters.
It's simply about waters miles high a.s.o.
And discussing c14 dating f.i. would also still fit the bill.
Very old behemoths would maybe fit the bill if they were also found everywhere in the world, but not if they were only 4500 years old.( This was another arbitrary choice as presumable date for the elusive flood)

We digressed since we got nowhere with KAB.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107179 Jan 13, 2013
MikeHockertz wrote:
Faith is believing in something without evidence and without ANY doubts or questions.
Thanks.
That disqualifies me on two counts.
There is evidence that whales evolved from ungulates,
and I'm not absolutely sure.

Suppose we found a fossil succession from ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found DNA similarities between ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found whale embryos which go through a stage in which they resemble ichythyosaurs.
And suppose we heard an explanation of how this evidence overshadows the evidence that whales are descended from ungulates.
Then I will suggest that whales are descended from ichthyosaurs.

But I'm not going to make that statement just to get MazHere to stop insulting me.

PS I see that you're a newcomer.
Welcome aboard!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107180 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
It doesn't take a creationist to seriously question evolution. Why have there been so many assumptions in the case of evolution and zero evidence (because what you claim to be evidence is in fact your interpretation of the exact same evidence creationists look at) Why does the theory of evolution change so much but true creationists that believe in the bible stick to their story. Nieche is the only atheist that was worth respect. He said that life itself is will to power, nothing else matters. Now even though he didn't believe in God he saw that man was LOST yet some atheists still believe that there is hope for humanity . People assume creationists just quote creationists and that they are stupid.Why have there been so many hoaxes of evidence for evolution, because atheists want to believe what they believe. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist.
This is almost like admitting that you are mentally lazy.
Just making an observation here.

A proper understanding of Nietzsche ist angesagt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzs...

The will to live would be strongest, but also force/empower people to find ways to survive and thrive, so social cohesion.
If their would be no god, we could presume a moral void, but given a breakdown some people with strong morals (the bermensch) would be needed and stand up, occur.
He was a staunch anti-nazi and against anti-semitism.
His niece twisted his material.

Everybody of any standing in Germany was Atheist, allready since the 19 th century. Anti-papism, turned to the root of the religion, given the influence of Luther, to extreme anti-semitism.
Hitler declared himself the new messiah come and a new 1000 year empire. See scenario in the christian part on judgement day, war etc.
The new kind of 'reversed' anti-semitism still has vestiges of that old thinking.
'If the jews had not been here, we would not have to feel guilty for causing them grieve.'
---the pope would not have...
---we would not have to give the churches...
---our kids would not be born sinfull...

If interested it would be best to read f.i. about Marx in France.
Which explains the background of the anti-reli movement that swept allover Europe. Poverties cause was attributed to the nobility and the clerics.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107181 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> I told you that I use fallacies but listen my first 2 lines where subjective because even though you debate me you will never change my mind but even though I debate you I will never change your mind.
But if what you believe is right we both die and become ground. Fine we're even. But let's say we both kick the bucket now and I am right, I won't see you in hell because its dark there and pain is everywhere. That is OBJECTIVE because I am not saying that you theory is wrong but there's a chance that you'll have eternal regret. Me on the other hand it can end positive or i become dirt.
Ground of ash.
I adhere to that religion that does not do heaven nor hell.
I can shoose anything i like including nothing, for my supposed seperate life-force c.q soul. Free will's ultimate consequence.
Even electing to not having a soul, nor simply relinquishing it to the first lame duck in a white dress or cute red outfit with pitchfork.
How you live while you are alive is what matters!
Going for a failed messiah, miracling away, would be a bit of a mistake i my book.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107182 Jan 13, 2013
I can't keep up with all the new-comers.:))
A boatload of 'm.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107183 Jan 13, 2013
MikeHockertz wrote:
Faith is believing in something without evidence and without ANY doubts or questions.
Thanks.
That disqualifies me on both counts.
There is evidence that whales evolved from ungulates,
and I'm not absolutely sure.

Suppose we found a fossil succession from ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found DNA similarities between ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found whale embryos which go through a stage in which they resemble ichythyosaurs.
And suppose we heard an explanation of how this evidence overshadows the evidence that whales are descended from ungulates.
Then I will suggest that whales are descended from ichthyosaurs.

But I'm not going to make that statement just to get MazHere to stop insulting me.

PS I see that you're a newcomer.
Welcome aboard!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107184 Jan 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I can't keep up with all the new-comers.:))
A boatload of 'm.
I see anger in what you say yet i never said you where wrong i just asked an honest question,(what if,) well since you are to dull to think like an open minded person I will put myself in an atheist's shoes. Atheist : there is no evidence for god so why should i care. I dont like the rules the other humans are making, I want to kill people because there is no absolute truth. Well that is a bit extreme actually a lot extreme but where do you draw the line of moral code. Now, say I am an atheist And IF just if christians are right and I die. I would regret my whole life. Remember JUST IF!!

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107185 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
Why does the theory of evolution change so much but true creationists that believe in the bible stick to their story.
Because Evolution is based on science and science changes
and Creationism is based on Scripture and Scripture doesn't change.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107186 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> I see anger in what you say yet i never said you where wrong i just asked an honest question,(what if,) well since you are to dull to think like an open minded person I will put myself in an atheist's shoes. Atheist : there is no evidence for god so why should i care. I dont like the rules the other humans are making, I want to kill people because there is no absolute truth. Well that is a bit extreme actually a lot extreme but where do you draw the line of moral code. Now, say I am an atheist And IF just if christians are right and I die. I would regret my whole life. Remember JUST IF!!
Well this is leading up to confusion.
Recall. Your former post went like: What if...that's it.
If you end in hell and i mayhap too, then we won't be aware of each other.( Where do they get the knowledge, one is left to wonder.)
So what am i to do with:...that's it...
Yeah sure, what else. If i would get in heaven i would also be blissfully unaware since all my time would be occupied in praising god, without however being aware of time passing or my surroundings or any discomfort (I talked to a christian. This was the picture.) So i wrote somewhere else that heaven and hell are thus for junkies. Since it seems to describe that kind of egotistical shot-up state.
So frankly as far as biochemistry calling it a day and being food for the worms i see no furhter scope to elaborate on 'that's it', basicly because even given heaven or hell you would be to occupied to even regret anything. And how can you not feel missing the aperture and still feel.

Sorry for all this meta-gibberish.
PS heaven and hell are late inventions, that require a steadfast believe in evil as a place and permanent mindstate.
And thus a black and white dualistic view of the world.
Well gray is the usual state of affairs.
But it always was a pre-dying choice, that brought money in the coffers of the church, but one you will not find in the hebrew book.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107187 Jan 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've selected the confirmation-free dataless presumptuous fool option as expected.
The Noah's ark flood actually happened. I see YOU'VE selected the confirmation-free dataless presumptuous fool option as expected.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107188 Jan 13, 2013
Another fallacy by the way Stefooch.
Why would atheism lead to a life of regret.
You seem to imply amorality.
A humanist can be a christian.
But a christian not necessarily a humanist.

And what if you simply define god as all that is and will be! That does include me as well. So i just have to stick to doing no harm as the golden rule. Find my place in this huge ecosystem.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107189 Jan 13, 2013
Judaism is not talking about some fictional state but making the world a nicer place. Not because you want to reap some award later.
Lately though their is a small group of reform jews that would kind of like the experience of the rocket-whoosh (forgot the term...uhh)taken away/up rising.

It almost makes you create a ride in a hottub on the fair.
And it is decidedly weird since we are talking about after-dead events, coming from the mind of a bloke on an island with several chips on his shoulders and a wild imagination.

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
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 1 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 2 hr Science 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr HTN640509-040147 81,486
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Dogen 32,891
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Dogen 2,187
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! (Apr '17) Oct 14 Science 876
More from around the web