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

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

There are 163763 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.

KAB

United States

#109388 Jan 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your words, not mine.
KAB

United States

#109389 Jan 30, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"the Bible is true because I say so"

Your words, not mine.
KAB

United States

#109390 Jan 30, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
BTW, I don't see you denying that you think there's a chance Earth might be cubic in shape.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109391 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words, not mine.
No, the Bible's words, remember? All contexts are (apparently) valid. If you say a circle can be a sphere then I say a square or can be a cube.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109392 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ah, but you have. Repeatedly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109393 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I stated, is it?
Pretty much, it is.
KAB

United States

#109394 Jan 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Bible's words, remember? All contexts are (apparently) valid. If you say a circle can be a sphere then I say a square or can be a cube.
Your words, not mine or the Bible's.
KAB

United States

#109395 Jan 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but you have. Repeatedly.
It only takes a quote to prove it, and your side has never provided even one for any accusation against me. At this point it's quite obvious why that is. Hey, what do you expect relative to one who is fully committed to purveying only truth?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109396 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It only takes a quote to prove it, and your side has never provided even one for any accusation against me. At this point it's quite obvious why that is. Hey, what do you expect relative to one who is fully committed to purveying only truth?

Sounds like a typical paranoid comment.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109397 Jan 30, 2013
First Artificial Enzyme Created by Evolution in a Test Tube

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/...

Pretty interesting.

First page at:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nche...

Nice summary at:
http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/content/sit...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109398 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It only takes a quote to prove it, and your side has never provided even one for any accusation against me.
We've provided many.
KAB wrote:
At this point it's quite obvious why that is.
It is. Because you're worth neither the time nor the trouble to go back and relocate your nonsense. We are all familiar with your MO. Quotes would merely be redundant.
KAB wrote:
Hey, what do you expect relative to one who is fully committed to purveying only truth?
In a world where truth is equivalent to bullshit, you would be correct.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109399 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words, not mine or the Bible's.
Doesn't matter. You already claim context can have much leeway. Either way my interpretation is no worse than yours.

Ain't no such thing as a Biblical literalist.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#109400 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It only takes a quote to prove it, and your side has never provided even one for any accusation against me.
That's simply not true.

On multiple occasions in multiple threads I've pointed out that your reasoning is backwards and that that leads to bad conclusions.

If you decide that the "Flood" is real and go looking for evidence that supports it, you will misunderstand what you see and draw bad conclusions.

A typical Creationist Flood argument is this:
"There are sea shells on top of mountains. That's how we know the Flood was real."

That's backwards thinking.

Why are the shells on top of mountains but not everywhere else? Why are the shells also INSIDE mountains, how does the Flood explain that? Why shells on top of mountains and not the bones of the animals that went up there to avoid the water?

etc etc etc

Religious people tend to see something which kinda sorta seems reasonable and then they immediately shut off their brains.

Then they complain that those of us who think things through are disrespectful.

Look, if you want to be ignorant, it's your right. Just understand that the people who actually matter also have opinions and that our opinions are more important than yours.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109401 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I bet you can't prove that.

For a change you have a point. Consciousness is enigmatic.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109402 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Why can these things not be a part of how GOD created them, and you have misinterpreted their existence?

Why would god create something that has evidence of another life form embedded in its DNA?

There was nothing else in your rant that was worth commenting on.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109403 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for your "irrelevant" contribution to the debate on Creationism vs. Evolution....NOT!!

Oh grow a pair. If you cannot respond to his post then just DON'T POST.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109404 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I did explain, but you either didn't comprehend or weren't paying attention. I commend you for providing the verses, and as you note, THAT is what is written, although even it is a translation of the original. What you gave other than that is your understanding of what the verses mean. You seemingly think that yours is the only understanding, and that betrays a weakness in your grasp of language mechanics. If you check with someone who is good with language, they will tell you that, in general, expressions have more than one possible meaning. When you start allowing for that you will have made a significant advance in your language skills, but it comes at the cost of loosening your grip on your bias. Restrictive use of language is an immediate and consistent sign of bias. In contrast, I also gave an understanding of the meaning, but I recognize that yours is another possibility except that it is out of harmony with other data, so why would one choose that possibility when it isn't necessary? Understand now?

In short, you have nothing except double talk.

Oh, didn't you know your post was that transparent?
KAB

United States

#109405 Jan 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a typical paranoid comment.
Without at least one quote there's no basis for even considering such.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109406 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Ok, but what about DNA, which is a coded language?

No, it's not.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> DNA is not intelligent, but How you you explain a non-intelligent cause like evolution, fabricating something that is as complex as a language, which produces intelligent information?

SS fallacy. Also appeal to ignorance is worked in there as well. By that logic nothing more complex that hydrogen could ever form. But the history of the universe is replete with increasing "complexity" (really not an issue since this is just a relative concept).
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Also, I don't know that the mind requires a body. I'm not so sure that the mind, consciouness, and the soul are not pretty close to the same thing.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I may be wrong but I don't think this is knowable. If I am correct, the soul/mind does not demand a body.

I don't know that it does either. Thoughts require a thinker (a brain) but base consciousness does not work like linear thought (cognition). There is a great deal of information in the Buddhist literature about consciousness and about thoughts and they are not believed to be the same thing. Google abhidharma and you will find 2600 years of Buddhist psychology waiting. But cognition, again, requires a brain and thoughts can be watched with certain types of brain scans.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> In fact, hospice litrature suggests that the dying experience is the mind/soul trying to rid itself of this heavy body.

No, this is not suggested in the hospice literature. I recommend a book by a guy who started a Buddhist hospice movement, Stephen Levine. The book is called "Who Dies?" The book is not so much about Buddhism as about what you are talking about.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I understand, but I had a good friend whos name was Tim Rice.....

Interesting story. I think you are reading to much into it, but it is still interesting. I had a patient die in my arms once, but that is another story.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109407 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>HAHAHAHAHCourt cases have no effect on the validity of science. THe scientific method takes care of that. I love it that human from non-human evolution has so much support and evidence that when these trials occur, evolutionists are forced to hire ACLU lawyers to make a church/state issue of it. Good science is like Good Art, it will stand on it's own. Bad science eventually crumbles and no one buys bad art. Human from non-human evolution is slowly going the way of bad art.

It is the evidence from science that decides these court cases. You just have some really sour grapes. You cannot force religion into schools.

good science does stand. Like the theory of evolution.

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) 1 hr Truth is might 222,761
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr River Tam 32,582
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr replaytime 79,965
What's your religion? 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web