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

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

There are 152139 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108234 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The non-Biblical sources you mention do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
I request data from you to support your claims. I have provided and will continue to provide my own data for my claims.
The Biblical sources you have mentioned do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
Data from you to support your claims? You have not provided data and have shown little inclination of providing any validations, legitimacy, evidence, facts, findings, exhibits, examples, verification, documentation, substantiations or even a long-overdue apology for your insipid and banal musings and suppositions.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108235 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I provide data. If people want to use it to convince themselves of something, that's their business.
You have not provided data. You've said that people should pretend like the story is true and that it's "possible" that Moses and his followers knew where all the water was.

That's not "providing" data.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108236 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I reviewed the program. Typical made-for-TV format. Some pieces of data or references to such, and a lot of speculation.
Do you realize that lack of evidence doesn't prove something didn't happen? People like you used to think that Sargon never existed, based on lack of evidence outside the Bible.
I really have to laugh at the mental hoops you fundamentalist force yourselves to jump through...all without realizing it. The program says definitively that "we have no evidence" of this or "we have evidence" of that and you tell yourself it's "a lot of speculation".

No wonder you have little grasp of reality.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108237 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that any fossil you find will be chronologically and morphologically between two other fossils which have already been found.
If you find a sea shell, there will already be shells which are older and newer already in collections. There will be ones which demonstrate a higher and lower degree of spikiness, or spiral, or concavity, or whatever you decide to measure.
And if you sort your fossil by chronology, it will end up in the exact same place on the scale as if you sorted it by morphology.
That would be impossible with Creationism.
NOTHING is impossible for GODMAGIC!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108238 Jan 20, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for the summary! I love that you should do it more often. I didn't say you were one of those non absolute truth people but the way. No catholics are bad because they call themselves Christian and yet pray to Mary.
And Proddy's are bad because so many of 'em lie for Jesus and couldn't give two hoots about the 9th Commandment?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108239 Jan 20, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I really have to laugh at the mental hoops you fundamentalist force yourselves to jump through...all without realizing it. The program says definitively that "we have no evidence" of this or "we have evidence" of that and you tell yourself it's "a lot of speculation".
No wonder you have little grasp of reality.
DS! You're alive!!!

:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108240 Jan 20, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There are many in here I don't waste my time with. For everyone I never read anymore, I gave a second chance to show at least minimal respect. If they can't do that, they no longer exist to me.
Translation: "I can disrespect anyone I like and lie like hell and won't talk to some people cuz they pointed out I was a big fat liar when I lied, and everyone will have to put up with me cuz I'm a big jessie-wuss wuss! And don't be mean to me or I'll block you too!!!"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108241 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your WWF comments were apparently aimed at a YEC, so you misfired.
His post applies equally well to OEC's, so you misfired. P.s. There's still some old data you ignored multiple times over. By all means carry on pretending it was never presented.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108242 Jan 20, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Satans bore is not worth replying to, That is why I ignore her when she comes back with 'they said so' style waffle on a debating forum. "I am a big hero" Satans bore claims, then refutes with a quack "Maz doen't doesn't like me, but I am right because they said so. How clever is that?
I have seen no sign of her credentials and I doubt she'll go through anything with you including beak size in birds being a somatic change and most certainly not above species level. I have not got any sense out of her after about three attempts. Good luck! You'll need it!
I've not seen sense out of you after HUNDREDS of attempts. Literally.

But at least you're still attempting!

:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108243 Jan 20, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo journals attest to over 150 years of published data much of which has been falsified. Publishing in evo journals does not mean 'right' or better.eg human knuckle walking ancesty, junk dna, pond soup or ocean vent etc etc.
Can you imagine those evohounds reading a paper suggesting bird footprints 212myo on Pangea support Aves thriving more than half way back to the Devonian? No, because we have to demonstrate exactly how God creates while evos do not have to demonstrate how an irreduceably complex cell organized itself, which appears to be impossible. Your claim is only a matter of scale different to mine. A living cell is not a heap less complex than a living species.
What's up? Can't find any support for a complex factory of reproduction, lipids, proteins, rna/dna complete with a fully functioning cell membrane, organizing itself?
Of course you can't. That is one reason why I am a theist.
Well I have some to support energy/light creating particles of matter.
Why do you rather have faith in an impossible scenario instead of having faith that a non organic life form that already exists has the power and knowledge to especially make organic life on earth?
Can't answer?
"I'll bite your legs off!"
- Black Knight
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108244 Jan 20, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So why is the GOD of the bible the only one you guys ever address?
Because there are few Muslim or Vedek creationists on here. Or in fact attempting to use political leverage to illegally shove religious apologetics into US public schools.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108245 Jan 20, 2013
God Himself wrote:
Your failure appears to be that you dont understand the attributes that are ascribed to God nor why nor how they were ascribed to "Him".
That makes everyone equal then.(shrug)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108246 Jan 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
DS! You're alive!!!
:-)
I am???
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108247 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not provided data. You've said that people should pretend like the story is true and that it's "possible" that Moses and his followers knew where all the water was.
That's not "providing" data.
The data is a matter-of-fact record in a source which has not been demonstrated incorrect in anything, has rather been proven correct for numerous accounts for which it was accused of error, coupled with nothing proving the Exodus was impossible and no physical data for the Exodus, which does not prove it didn't happen. That does not ask anyone to pretend anything.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108248 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The real basis of the skepticism is not merely lack of confirming data, but data directly in contradiction with a WWF at that time. Genetic diversity, biogeography, and the continuity of world cultures are all incompatible with a WWF. Therefore - it never happened. In that light, the additional factor - total lack of any confirming evidence for a WWF - is merely to be expected.
I don't think you're confident enough in your position to actually verify it. Are you confident enought to cite what you think is the best specific example of data directly in cotradiction with a WWF. You only make reference to disciplines. Are you willing to actually put a specific data example on the table for consideration? I didn't think so (So far I have a good record of foretelling the future!). You probably don't even understand the data from the disciplines.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108249 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of questionable claims in the Bible..
However, the Flood is a good example because it posits a massive event that should have disrupted life completely and left big scars on the geological landscape and left its signature on human and all other DNA. Since none of that happened, we have solid evidence that at least one Biblical story is not accurate and therefore your claims of Biblical Infallibility can only be believed by someone determined to ignore their own extreme biases.
Its one thing - and fair enough - to demand data. Its another thing to ignore the conclusions that follow from the data once given. Ever heard of cognitive bias?
Its characteristic in a forum like this for the discussion to harp on about one tiny questionable claim, e.g. "Was Acheopteryx an intermediate?" while ignoring the vast edifice of evidence that has been steadily accumulating, unquestioned, for decades, as if the whole issue of evolution rested on one or two data points.
The whole fossil record is so extensive and reliable that real geologists working in oil companies - where a wasted drilling operation would cost millions - routinely use index fossils to quickly identify and date rock strata. Lets see what a CREATIONIST TRAINED geologist who had written 20+ Creation Papers in Creation Journals had to say on the matter once his pre-instilled cognitive bias (from Institute of Creation Research), fell apart under the weight of the real evidence...
Read the folowing article:
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm
" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."
-Glen R Morton
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm
Morton was a card carrying champion for your viewpoint, but reality simply did not tally with what he had been taught, and honesty compelled him to change his views.
Surprise!!! Morton wasn't carrying my card. Regarding geology, at least, it seems he may be carrying it now.

It's characteristic in this forum for your side to assume YEC, YEC, YEC for every input not from your side. What kind of bias is that? Would that be "any dolt can disprove YEC" bias, or "if YEC is all I can disprove, then all opposition is a YEC" bias?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108250 Jan 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Biblical sources you have mentioned do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
Data from you to support your claims? You have not provided data and have shown little inclination of providing any validations, legitimacy, evidence, facts, findings, exhibits, examples, verification, documentation, substantiations or even a long-overdue apology for your insipid and banal musings and suppositions.
What do you mean by "Biblical sources"? The Bible itself is the only thing I have proclaimed a demonstrated reliable source.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108251 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The data is a matter-of-fact record in a source which has not been demonstrated incorrect in anything, has rather been proven correct for numerous accounts for which it was accused of error, coupled with nothing proving the Exodus was impossible and no physical data for the Exodus, which does not prove it didn't happen. That does not ask anyone to pretend anything.
This claim that the Bible has never been shown to be incorrect is simply untrue.

Bats are not birds.
Rabbits are not cows.
Gopher wood is not Kopher wood.

Those are just simple, real world, OBVIOUS errors.

Then there's things like:
There was never a Great Flood
Adam and Eve aren't real people
Snakes don't talk

etc etc etc

The fact that you accept ALL these things without question means that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Does the Bible reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Does the Iliad reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.

Doesn't mean Zeus is real.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108252 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise!!! Morton wasn't carrying my card. Regarding geology, at least, it seems he may be carrying it now.
It's characteristic in this forum for your side to assume YEC, YEC, YEC for every input not from your side. What kind of bias is that? Would that be "any dolt can disprove YEC" bias, or "if YEC is all I can disprove, then all opposition is a YEC" bias?
Actually, it's "these idiots are all the same" bias.

You're making all the same arguments that they make.

You are arguing that the Bible is infailable.
How do you justify being an OEC?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108253 Jan 20, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I really have to laugh at the mental hoops you fundamentalist force yourselves to jump through...all without realizing it. The program says definitively that "we have no evidence" of this or "we have evidence" of that and you tell yourself it's "a lot of speculation".
No wonder you have little grasp of reality.
No, it's statements like the following quote from the program that I tell myself are speculation,

"Many similar discrepancies, throughout its pages, suggest that the Bible has more than one writer. In fact, within the first five books of the Bible, scholars have identified the hand of at least four different groups of scribes, writing over several hundred years. This theory is called the Documentary Hypothesis."

What do you tell yourself it is? BTW, this is a test of your grasp of reality.

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) 3 min Dogen 209,507
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min Richardfs 45,436
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr It aint necessari... 20,232
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 22 hr Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web