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

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

There are 163079 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

#109368 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you call allowing for more than one meaning of something. It's better characterized as objective handling of language, however. Thus, we can call failure to make such allowance bias which apparently is your admission.
IOW: Anything can mean anything if I want it too.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109369 Jan 30, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Dutch royalty is very religious, so she ruled for 33 years. That should ring a bell. And if i'm correct Alexander is 42 now also.
"We think this is important. We think this means something"

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109370 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You believe that, but as for me, I'll believe....
Psalms 118
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
How typically obtuse.

Humans wrote Genesis. Humans taught you to read it. Humans rationalize, interpret and champion it. Humans taught you to believe it. Now you read and write about it, rationalize, interpret and champion it, believe it and try to teach it.

Yet all the while, nature (or "the Lord", comme vous s'il vous plaît) disproves it.
So who do you REALLY trust in over "the Lord?" Yourself.
KAB

United States

#109371 Jan 30, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And at the expense of your critical thinking skills.
I might take that to heart if it wasn't coming from someone who thinks there's still a chance Earth may be cubic in shape!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109372 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I might take that to heart if it wasn't coming from someone who thinks there's still a chance Earth may be cubic in shape!
It still may be. After all, according to you all contexts of words are valid. And there are certainly some passages that describe a non-spherical shape.
KAB

United States

#109373 Jan 30, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
If you collected $.25 from every person that really cared about this subject, you still wouldn't have enough to buy a cup of coffee.
That seems about right, essentially the same proportion ballpark as those taking an active interest in determining and propagating what is true. Apparently you don't count yourself among them.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109374 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
We are not required to be cognisant of nor take any shroud into consideration; whether the shroud is authentic or not.
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Many Christians give quite a large rat's ass about the shroud of Turin. If they didn't, it wouldn't be so well known or so heavily discussed. You wouldn't even be aware of it if so many Christians didn't care so much about it.
God Himself wrote:
We are not required...
LowellGuy wrote:
You might want to try thinking before you speak. It would help you avoid saying stupid things.
You might want to READ before you think. It would help you avoid saying stupid things.
LowellGuy

United States

#109375 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I might take that to heart if it wasn't coming from someone who thinks there's still a chance Earth may be cubic in shape!
Says the guy who thinks "the Bible is true because I say so" is all the evidence required for a rational person to think a global year-long miles-deep cataclysmic flood happened 4500 years ago and left not only no corroborating evidence, but CONTRADICTORY evidence! Pardon me while I don't give a sgit what a delusional liar thinks of actual intellectual integrity.
KAB

United States

#109376 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I get your point.
But lets say you were wandering around and came across a tribe worshipping Yallaballa as the one and only Creator, then you went 500 miles and found another tribe worshipping the one and only Creator Bigwig, and learned that they all observed basically the same beliefs, would you be hung up on the fact that they used a different label? One man's apple is another man's pomme de terre.
Who cares if the Israeites said Yahweh, Jehovah, or Mr Biggles?
To me its one of those pointless arguments that show how futile most religious/dogmatic thinking is, and what a waste of brain space that could be used more constructively.
I agree that what's important is that it be clear who's being identified, not the label used. However, if I tell you my name is YHWH, I don't appreciate you purposely not respecting that in your specific choice of label. For example, "God" or "Lord" by themselves are insufficient for specific identification since there are many of those, and additionally they are variously identified by a number of names.
LowellGuy

United States

#109377 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You might want to READ before you think. It would help you avoid saying stupid things.
You said CHRISTIANS don't give a rat's ass about the shroud of Turin. I refuted that claim. Never said anything about being required. Try being honest next time, and we might not treat you like a liar.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109378 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>

You might want to READ before you think. It would help you avoid saying stupid things.
Interesting.. when it's Piltdown Man you are ready to raise it on a pike and scream through a microphone, "LOOK AT THIS! LOOK AT THIS!"
When it is the Shroud of Turin you squeek,
....
("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain")
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109379 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY
The Dude wrote:
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency
God Himself wrote:
... EFFICIENCY.
The Dude wrote:
...it would... be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.
In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
The Dude wrote:
Not really. I presented evidence, pointed out how it could be tested, it wasn't addressed.
You presented evidence which you interpreted according to your academic or intellectual agenda.

I dont see the need to question what you think of evidence in the context.

The evidence could be interpreted otherwise.
The Dude wrote:
Like I pointed out on the other thread, all you can prove is that the universe is here. Not that an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard is responsible for the whole shebang.
You seem to be obsessed with that false conception of "God" that you often describe; I cant imagine why.

But let me entertain you idea of God for a while.

Why cant I prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard is responsible for the whole shebang?"

Explain why or what principle makes it impossible for me to prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard" did it.
KAB

United States

#109380 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It did not say the Sun and Moon and stars became visible on the fourth day.
It says God made them on the fourth day.
There is no "legitimate way" to interpret plain absurdities.
IN any case, if you are going to interpret, then consider that the order of creation would be consistent with a primitive who considered the Earth to be the big central core of creation, with the sun, moon and stars as mere lamps hung over it. As is consistent with other passages in the Bible such as the one describing the stars falling to the Earth in the end time.
You keep harping about the Bible being consistent with facts while an objective observer sees huge discrepancies everywhere. You do know what confirmation bias is, don't you?
I know confirmation bias. You exhibited it in your post by not checking the original language range of possible meanings of the word rendered "make" in the passage.
KAB

United States

#109381 Jan 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Another nice post MAAT. I read your posts with interest even though I don't always respond to them. Very interesting points.
Thanks for the fascinating ideas.
Don't you wish Bob was like MAAT, Doc? Apparently right up your alley!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109382 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
Not really. An intelligence can perform tasks inefficiently, but still have intelligence.

You claimed "efficiency" indicates intelligence. Now you're changing it to "performance". Not sure whether you're being daft or dishonest here.

Yet I'm still waiting for you to present the mechanisms of these alleged performances, along with evidence of those mechanisms, along with whatever those particular performances are.
God Himself wrote:
You presented evidence which you interpreted according to your academic or intellectual agenda.
I dont see the need to question what you think of evidence in the context.
The evidence could be interpreted otherwise.
The only intellectual academic agenda is education. I not only presented evidence but also how it was tested. If you have a difference "interpretation" of orthologous ERV's can be shared amongst the great apes that passes the scientific method we'd all love to hear it. Until then we can safely assume that you didn't have a clue what we were talking about anyway and hence dismissed it for theological reasons and incredulity.
God Himself wrote:
You seem to be obsessed with that false conception of "God" that you often describe; I cant imagine why.
But let me entertain you idea of God for a while.
Why cant I prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard is responsible for the whole shebang?"
Explain why or what principle makes it impossible for me to prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard" did it.
The simple fact you've not been able to demonstrate it yet.(shrug)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109383 Jan 30, 2013
I foresee long dence repetitions, of the he said/she said. and than aunt maud said etc.

Must be viral on that island.(Cleaned up the sea yet? And how about gay bashing and general homofobia. And oh what's the rapestatistic again?)

GH DID NOT SAY THAT.*

God Himself wrote:
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY

The Dude wrote:
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency

God Himself wrote:
... EFFICIENCY.

The Dude wrote:
...it would... be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.

*God Himself: In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.

---
It's simple: you did not specify in what way efficiency would be tested.
This going to take another hundred post:
YOU did NOT write WHAT The Dude wrote.
Even if you intended it, you STILL DID NOT WRITE IT DOWN.

So you are dishonest.

How hard is that to understand?!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#109384 Jan 30, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
<quoted text>
You presented evidence which you interpreted according to your academic or intellectual agenda.
I dont see the need to question what you think of evidence in the context.
The evidence could be interpreted otherwise.
<quoted text>
You seem to be obsessed with that false conception of "God" that you often describe; I cant imagine why.
But let me entertain you idea of God for a while.
Why cant I prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard is responsible for the whole shebang?"
Explain why or what principle makes it impossible for me to prove that "an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard" did it.
Because you are an idiot.
KAB

United States

#109385 Jan 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, not bias. Merely reasonable skepticism.
Same here.
KAB

United States

#109386 Jan 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it betrays yours. Your ridiculous argument is to ignore the context. You cite the use of 'day' in Genesis 2 and equate it to its use in Genesis 1. It is obvious that the context is different.
Your insistence that the full range of the possible meanings of a word can apply to any use of the word in any context is stupid.
<quoted text>
If your referring to yourself, excuse me a moment while I clean up the coffee I just spit all over the place.
<quoted text>
It's not my possibility. It the possibility of the Fundamentalists. I think the whole thing is pretty much a crock.
<quoted text>
Which is why you have to resort to such linguistic contortions to try and reconcile reality with something you know is incorrect.
<quoted text>
I understand that we have yet to see how low you will stoop.
You state,
"Your insistence that the full range of the possible meanings of a word can apply to any use of the word in any context is stupid."

That's why I don't make that claim or application.
KAB

United States

#109387 Jan 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW: Anything can mean anything if I want it too.
That's not what I stated, is it?

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 min Frindly 1,512
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 32,463
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Agents of Corruption 222,271
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Aug 21 Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web