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

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

There are 160242 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109121 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong because you are not honest. An agnostic would be open to both sides. You never accept an argument that is procreation, and you are always on the attack of creationists. You dishonestly claim ignorance, while obviously having a bias to one side. That is weak and noncommital.
Listen, if you reject GOD, have the balls to be an atheist, and accept the consequences, if any, for your decision. You might as well, because if you are wrong, and the bible is true, your fate as an agnostic is the same as an atheist. You are dishonest because you label yourself as neutral, but your replies reflect otherwise.
When you make a claim for which there is no evidence, that argument is rightly rejected. It doesn't matter what that claim is. We accept arguments for which there is evidence. Without evidence, you're just making shit up. When you stop making shit up and start presenting evidence, we'll stop rejecting your claims.

That doesn't mean we're saying you're wrong; it means we're saying you haven't demonstrated in any way that you're right. Until you can do that, we are correct in not accepting your claims. Bitching about us having critical thinking skills isn't exactly helping your case.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109122 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that it was evolutionists that presented it as evidence.
That other people fell for the hoax is something evos should be rather facking ashamed of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
God Himself wrote:
Evolutionary ideas created the hoax, then evolutionary science revealed that the hoax was a hoax.*shrug*
So, you're saying that the ability of science to sniff out hoaxes is a weakness of science?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109123 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
There is nothing in any one of those that addresses to issue of whether or not the particles of matter in and of themselves have any potential to transform themselves by themselves.
And guess what?
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY, it makes things work.
So even if you did prove that the particles of matter in and of themselves have potential to transform themselves by themselves; all you would have demonstrated is that there is a subtle intelligence at work in nature based on the efficiency of natural processes.
<quoted text>
And what happened when you woke up from that dream?
<quoted text>
You usually just talk a lot of things that you piece together and rationalize it as proof of what you want to prove.
My claims are demonstrated every minute, every, second every third.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence can be observed throughout the natural world.
Demonstrate this omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. If we observe them, you can demonstrate them and show that those are the only explanations for what we observe. Let's have it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109124 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You think?
Humans will go to any lengths to prove what they want to prove; even if it means fabricating evidence.
What is the shroud of Turin?
KAB

United States

#109125 Jan 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue (you deceitful little crapbag) was the meaning IN CONTEXT. The context in Ch 1 is clearly defined.
Back to your little, mind control, cult you go.
Have you noticed how the degree/acridity of the name-calling is inversely proportional to the amount of confirming data provided?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109126 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence?
Your posts are the evidence. The only excuses you make are conspiracy nuttery.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109127 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That's all you can do is gripe about spelling. Care to challenge me? Care to dare tackle the subject? IT doesn't appear you are able too. You've replied to two posts, and both were silly, non-dealing, replies.
It wouldn't be fair to challenge you, as you're clearly challenged enough as it is.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109128 Jan 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible was originally Jewish.
Scientific Method was influenced by Muslims too (see (Ibn al-Haytham).

Will you deny its value because it was influenced by persons that are of a different ethnic background or is disposed to religious conceptions (as such)?
KittenKoder wrote:
God is just a big wizard in the sky.
Different people see Him differently.*shrug*
KittenKoder wrote:
There, proven.
That you are an angry hag who needs a man?

Cuz I aint seein no proof of nothin else.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109129 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
Humans will go to any lengths to prove what they want to prove; even if it means fabricating evidence.
Let me guess. Still on about the century old Piltdown Man hoax? The one suspect from the start and debunked by evolutionary scientists?

Certainly wasn't exposed by creationists. They are only capable of exposing themselves...to well deserved ridicule.
KAB

United States

#109130 Jan 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The perversion "Jehovah" is a mistranslation based on the ignorance of Hebrew diacritical markings. Once that is known (and it is) the correct pronunciation is (at least very close to)'Yahweh'.
The lies an misunderstandings of modern cultists not withstanding.
As you acknowledge, the original pronunciation of God's name is unknown. Also, Jehovah is not a translation. It's a way of rendering the name in a particular language, just as John, Juan, and Johann are 3 ways of rendering, not translating, a "name" (identity actually) in different languages.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109131 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that it was evolutionists that presented it as evidence.
That other people fell for the hoax is something evos should be rather facking ashamed of.
<quoted text>
Evolutionary ideas created the hoax, then evolutionary science revealed that the hoax was a hoax.*shrug*
Self-correcting. I fail to see the problem.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109132 Jan 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
<quoted text>
Christ said "the flesh profiteth not, it is the spirit that quickeneth".

In other words,'matter is gross and stagnating, energy is mental and activating'.

The essence of it all?

Christians dont give a rat's a$$ about the shroud of Turin!!!

We are not required to be cognisant of nor take any shroud into consideration; whether the shroud is authentic or not.

[QUOTE who="LowellGuy"

So, you're saying that the ability of science to sniff out hoaxes is a weakness of science?
[/QUOTE]

Am I saying that?

Tell me if thats what the words that I typed mean to you; I long for a good laugh.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109133 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
What argument?
That thing you wrote had redundancy terms, as if you were using the terms to describe or define themselves.
Would you kindly repost it again and let us examine it?
False. The terms were not being used to describe themselves. Repetition in this case was merely a rhetorical tool to add emphasis to the point being made.

You made a fool of yourself by trying to divert the discussion down an irrelevant pathway when you had no answer to the content of the argument itself. A pity, as you were at least making some intelligent discussion points up until then as we looked into what scientific knowledge is and is not.

You are not seriously stupid enough to have been confused by my grammar, as nobody else was, and it made perfect sense. Whether it was correct or not was something we might have discussed. But you chose the easy way out and got deservedly hammered for it.

I already reposted it once in response to your inane attack but feel free to retrieve it if you still want to waste your time.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109134 Jan 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we observe them, you can demonstrate them ...
Can everything that is can be observed be demonstrated?

Can everything that can be inferred be demonstrated?

Demonstrate dark matter.

Lets have it.

Hypocritical facker.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109135 Jan 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the shroud of Turin?
Who gives a fack?

Not me nor any real seeker of God. Thats for sure.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109136 Jan 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you acknowledge, the original pronunciation of God's name is unknown. Also, Jehovah is not a translation. It's a way of rendering the name in a particular language, just as John, Juan, and Johann are 3 ways of rendering, not translating, a "name" (identity actually) in different languages.
The very notion that "God" - a supreme intelligence that is supposedly Master and Creator of the entire universe, has a "real name" is just pure, stupendous, silliness. Do you think it would make any difference if some humans labelled this alleged supreme being Blabergoooboo?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109137 Jan 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only excuses you make are conspiracy nuttery.
Excuses for what exactly?

Send me a text message. We dont need to use the forum for bickering.
KAB

United States

#109138 Jan 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
There are several ways to read heaven. let's say i take that to mean spiritual. And earth thus as material.
And not f.i. form the Marduk myth heaven and earth being mom and dad.
quote:
Taking the sample from the post above, we would get:
1 By/as restrictions rule judges heaven and earth.
All is subject to the ruling including the court=elohym. Or in this case defined the subject.
vso I would normaly say BUT
1:1 -1:3
make one sentence.
So 1:1 S 1:2 a subclause (further reading on that in Holmstedt)1:3 V and O said.' Let light be'
1:1 S 1:3 V O
Verdict said 'lights'!
You're entitled to your ongoing dataless mental meanderings, but I've already been told, "The consensus would thus be that genesis 1:1 gives the verb and actor" (MAAT). Yes, there are drawbacks to stream-of-consciousness communication. It's best to think, sort, organize, and content check against verifiable data before you launch. There can also be benefits to stream-of-consciousness. You can inadvertantly stumble onto the truth even tho you don't want to!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109139 Jan 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Evolutionary ideas created the hoax, then evolutionary science revealed that the hoax was a hoax.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Self-correcting. I fail to see the problem.
Self deceiving. You will never see the problem.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109140 Jan 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The terms were not being used to describe themselves. Repetition in this case was merely a rhetorical tool to add emphasis to the point being made.
You made a fool of yourself by trying to divert the discussion down an irrelevant pathway when you had no answer to the content of the argument itself. A pity, as you were at least making some intelligent discussion points up until then as we looked into what scientific knowledge is and is not.
You are not seriously stupid enough to have been confused by my grammar, as nobody else was, and it made perfect sense. Whether it was correct or not was something we might have discussed. But you chose the easy way out and got deservedly hammered for it.
I already reposted it once in response to your inane attack but feel free to retrieve it if you still want to waste your time.
Bla bla bla...

Repost the statements and let us address it front and centre or shut the fack up.

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 RED X Sniper 61,115
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr THE LONE WORKER 220,533
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Science 28,312
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 hr Subduction Zone 2,643
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 20 hr Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) Mar 15 fransherrell 227
More from around the web