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

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

There are 157755 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108837 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1 has the heavens (includes the sun) and the earth being created in the beginning. So, it does not have Earth created before the sun.
That was an introductory sentence. A preface, Mr English Expert. The sun isn't mentioned until the 4th day. Genesis 1:16-19
KAB wrote:
On the other point, you're right. You didn't imply anything. You simply raised the question, "So what?".
So what?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108838 Jan 25, 2013
My "So what?" was in response to your question:
KAB wrote:
That record is among the oldest of the old in the Bible, is it not?
Perhaps I should have said "How does it matter?". However, I doubt you would have replied to that either. You have a history of ignoring things.
KAB

United States

#108839 Jan 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You may want to consider that material, so once you find it, you can direct me to the confirming data you're sure it contains
Genesis chapters one and two for a start.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108840 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1 has the heavens (includes the sun) and the earth being created in the beginning. So, it does not have Earth created before the sun.
On the other point, you're right. You didn't imply anything. You simply raised the question, "So what?".
Do you have so little shame in your blatant quest to discredit other posters that you even throw "data" from your own Holy Bible onto the compost heap? What a disgustingly low bar of ethics and morality you creationists set for yourselves.

Gen 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth"(day one)
Gen 16 "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day..." (day four)
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108841 Jan 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"structures, dont, its"
Intentional irony? Doubtful.
I was waiting on you with that.

It was a spelling error not an attempt at irony.

But I am disappointed because apparently you dont have any knowledge of literary techniques neither.

I thought you would make a valid criticism.

The word should have been "structureD", not "structures".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108842 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis chapters one and two for a start.
We've been over this. You invoke ridiculous interpretations such as equating the use of the word "day" in Genesis 2 to have the same meaning in Genesis 1 - which it clearly doesn't have. Hell, it's not even the same author.
KAB

United States

#108843 Jan 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is fantasy.
While you have been busy being starstruck at how great God's power must be to have accomplished such a feat, you have already been provided information about the weight of water, the volume of water in a cubic mile, the atmospheric pressures beneath the water column, the crush limit of pine wood, the hypothetical effects (because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN) of both fresh and salt water intrusion on ecosystems, etc., etc.
"KABBY! Time to wake up, dear!"
Does that change the fact that GH indicated it would still be a local flood because only the local mountains would be covered?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108844 Jan 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubt is a wise choice, until actual evidence is presented and not just hearsay and conjecture ... which is all you have for your entire religion.
Lets discuss the nature of evidence:

==========
Say that I an a friend were discussing women when you walked pass and I tell my friend ""KittenKodnner has the best pu$$y in town".

My friend may ask how I know that.

I may tell my friend: "Because I have been inside it".

Now he may ask for proof that I have been inside your pu$$y.

Lets say I dip into my pockets and bring out a Victoria Secret thong, and say that it belongs to you.

And lets say that he ran the relevant tests including DNA tests and found out that the thong belonged to you.

==========
IS YOUR THONG, ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THAT CASE?

AND DOES THE FACT THAT I HAVE YOUR THONG AS EVIDENCE THAT I SLEPT WITH YOU, MEAN THAT I ACTUALLY DID?
==========

The thong would be evidence.

It would be quite compelling evidence O.o

However, that evidence could be interpreted 2 ways.

It could be interpreted as evidence that I actually slept with you.

BUT ALSO:

It could be interpreted as evidence that I am a house-breaking panty-thief.
==========

So we see that evidence does not convince nor prove; it supports.

It is YOU that choose to accept a thing as proof or as something that is able to convince you.

It is you that determine what is real to you and what is doubltful.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT NATURALLY CONVINCE: IT IS YOU THAT DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF THING WILL CONVINCE YOU .

Some of us seem to accept what is arrived at by consensus as real and true and proven.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108845 Jan 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
...interpretations such as equating the use of the word "day" in Genesis 2 to have the same meaning in Genesis 1 - which it clearly doesn't have. Hell, it's not even the same author.
Please enlighten us as to how you arrived at those conclusionS.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108846 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets discuss the nature of evidence:
==========
....
Irony meter went boom just now. Your religion has less evidence than what you consider invalid evidence, yet you believe it is fact. Evolution has the most evidence supporting it in all of the scientific theories, yet you deny it. You should take your own advice.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108847 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Please enlighten us as to how you arrived at those conclusionS.
Which? The use of the word "day"? Clearly you can read, can you not?

Biblical scholars who have analyzed Genesis conclude Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly source while Genesis, Yahwistic.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108848 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
I was waiting on you with that.
It was a spelling error not an attempt at irony.
But I am disappointed because apparently you dont have any knowledge of literary techniques neither.
I thought you would make a valid criticism.
The word should have been "structureD", not "structures".
LOL! It isn't my fault you used the wrong tense and omitted (correction: omit) apostrophes while criticizing other posters' syntax and phraseology.
The contraction of "do not" is "don't." The contraction of "it is" is "it's"; the possessive form of "it" is "its."

Can we be done with this irrelevant minutiae, now?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108849 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that change the fact that GH indicated it would still be a local flood because only the local mountains would be covered?
Optimistic speculations by GH are your newest source of data? Genesis states all the Earth, not a hypothetical basin somewhere north of the Persian Gulf.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#108850 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
The Marksman seems to think that nothing can exist between extremes:
Human - Nonhuman, Life - Nonlife, Black - White, Day - Night, Christian - Atheist
Simple dichotomies for a simple mind.
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, yah.

Popular among those unwilling or unable to do much thinking.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108851 Jan 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been over this. You invoke ridiculous interpretations such as equating the use of the word "day" in Genesis 2 to have the same meaning in Genesis 1 - which it clearly doesn't have. Hell, it's not even the same author.
Congratulations MikeF, you have revealed, to us at least, an obvious Biblical mistake....and a rather large one at that.

Now that we KNOW for sure that the Bible is not an 'Always Literally Right' text from god himself, we can commence to tear KAB and his 'Demonstrated Reliable Source' assertions apart.

Genesis would be the first to go I think, as practically everything in it is nothing but allegory, parables, or metaphorical. In other words....MYTH.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108853 Jan 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Which? The use of the word "day"? Clearly you can read, can you not?
Biblical scholars who have analyzed Genesis conclude Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly source while Genesis, Yahwistic.
Suppose I said:

"The emerging of technology marks the "dawn of a new day" for mankind."

What would that "day" imply in YOUR mind?

I will not even involve the concept that time might be perceived differently by beings of different natures.

Just answer the question regarding the meaning of "day" as used in the context above.

Furthermore, what is the meaning of "Priestly"?

And how is priestly differentiated from "Yahwistic"?

I have heard of Priests of Yahweh.

Could please provide reference for the information you gave previously and teh ones you are about to give.

I dont trust you [email protected] with any form of data whatsoever; not even fairy tales.

I have seen the way Hollywood facked up a perfectly good fairy tale, like "Snow White".

Is that a Menorah on the shield the character is carrying?

Fack!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108854 Jan 25, 2013
Done now?

This was just starting to be fun.
ChromiuMan wrote:
... criticizing other posters' syntax and phraseology.
Where?

How?

I distincly remember saying he didnt make logical sense; I cant remember correcting him on his syntax as it relates to grammar.

I cant recall ever criticising his phraseology; except to say that the length of a sentence does not imply the logic of its content.

Essentially, you are lying.
ChromiuMan wrote:
The contraction of "do not" is "don't." The contraction of "it is" is "it's"; the possessive form of "it" is "its."
Can we be done with this irrelevant minutiae, now?
With regards to leaving off punctuations:

The nature of the situation makes it necessary to somewhat "abbreviate" our words in order to increase the rate of our posting; for obvious reasons.

Hence it is not uncommon for someone to begin sentences with common letters and even type with utter disregard for apostrophes.

What is your point, exactly?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108855 Jan 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have faith because you accept things you can not emperically <sic> prove. Like a naturalistic origin of life, and human from non-human evolution.
We have proof of human from non-human evolution….keep up.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108856 Jan 25, 2013
And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

No matter how an ideologue wants to waffle, interpret or rationalize, "day" is definitively 12 hours +/- of daylight in one breath and (light, dark, evening plus morning) a 24 hour "day" in the next. Whether it's in Godian, Godese or Godoslavian, in the biblical creation myth a "day" must be a literal 24 hours and a week is 168 hours.
Now KAB, Mark, GH... quit yer diatribes, posturing, sidestepping, hypothesizing and blustering and fit the known FACTS to your story.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108857 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
If the local area was in something of "basin" (as it relates to landforms) then it would be possible to stand at the border of the basin and look at the top of mountains that are in the depression.
It would also be possible for the flood to cover the tops of mountains in that "basin" without the flood spreading to neighbouring countries.
Can you not understand that?
Yes I can. Is that what happened?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min The Northener 52,201
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 min scientia potentia... 1,206
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 min scientia potentia... 497
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr scientia potentia... 218,826
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr scientia potentia... 24,885
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Jan 19 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web