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

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

There are 162511 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109528 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>According to your atheistic religion, human beings have no free will. Since you believe that everyone is a product of their genetic heritage and environment, then anyone who is a "liar" can't help it.
Actually it's under theism we have no free will. Either God is all-knowing and free will is but an illusion, or it's not God.

Dunno what theism or atheism have to do with science though, as it's completely irrelevant. But then you can't help shooting your own feet off by telling everyone your "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC.
HTS wrote:
Why, then, do you go around insulting people, as if they have free will? Your base hypocrisy has been exposed.
As a creationist who says every single field of science is wrong cuz Jewmagic, your base hypocrisy was exposed long ago. Then you run away as usual then come back a few months later repeating the same old lies and fallacies and pretending we've never been able to address them before.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109529 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When multiple understanding possibilities exist I always acknowledge them. Do you?
BTW, the Bible is real (i.e., It exists.), and as a document it relates things, many of which can be tested and many which cannot be. The standard paradigm for declaring Bible error is to identify a passage, then identify a meaning for that passage, from among its multiple possibilities, which either puts it out of harmony with some physical data and/or another passage from the Bible which also is "allowed" to mean only one thing and that being something which puts it in conflict with the other passage. Perhaps you can explain what is objective about this.
For the record, another approach is to see if there are any possible meanings of the passages which put them IN harmony with both physical data and each other, and then recognize and accept that as what could have been meant. Can you see the objectivity in this?
Since you're ultimately arguing for the validity of invisible Jewmagic which cannot be tested, no I don't.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109530 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your earliest geologists were operating from a false premise, young Earth.
Every time I ask for confirming evidence against the Flood, either nothing is provided, or I have readily discredited what is provided by exposing its failings. I await your premiere airtight example, or have you given it up already?
Kitten's right. You are a liar.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109531 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the Bible ever uses the expression "global flood" or its equivalent in any language. If you know otherwise, then please provide the confirming quote(s).
I've already done that. You ignore the facts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109532 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the Bible ever uses the expression "global flood" or its equivalent in any language. If you know otherwise, then please provide the confirming quote(s).
Funny that you should take this position when you have repeatedly argued that all those civilizations of the world who never noticed the flood simply forgot to make note of it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109533 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the Bible ever uses the expression "global flood" or its equivalent in any language. If you know otherwise, then please provide the confirming quote(s).
PROVEN A LIAR - AGAIN.
Gen 7:
"4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH every living creature I have made...”
"...17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL THE HIGH MOUNTAINS UNDER THE ENTIRE HEAVENS WERE COVERED. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains TO A DEPTH OF MORE THAN FIFTEEN CUBITS. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

SQUIRM, BABY.
KAB

United States

#109534 Feb 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. The conditions I've described cannot exist if the flood occurred. However, there are possibilities, remote though they are, that our instruments have in some way captured incorrect images of the Earth from space. But, a genetic bottleneck MUST exist for the flood to be true. Without a universal genetic bottleneck for all life tracing back to the same time, there can have been no such flood. It's a mutually exclusive set of conditions.
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109535 Feb 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
PROVEN A LIAR - AGAIN.
Gen 7:
"4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH every living creature I have made...”
"...17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL THE HIGH MOUNTAINS UNDER THE ENTIRE HEAVENS WERE COVERED. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains TO A DEPTH OF MORE THAN FIFTEEN CUBITS. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
SQUIRM, BABY.
Awaiting KAB's colorful interpretation.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109536 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?
Two different topics, two different types of evidence.
KAB

United States

#109537 Feb 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No KAB, you hav enot falsified the evidence of cultures surviving through the period 2500 BC nor have you falsified the genetic data showing no bottleneck at 4500 years ago in any creature including humans nor have you explained the total lack of flood deposits that would be expected if the flood were real.
All you have shown is some people's capacity to cling to a belief no matter how much evidence points to its falsehood....if they think thereby they can avoid spiritual death. In effect, you are demonstrating only the human capacity for cowardice.
I have never claimed to have falsified any of the data to which you refer. I have only demonstrated how that data is or may be inconclusive. If you don't acknowledge the exposures in the data, who is it that is actually clinging to a demonstrably false belief? What are you trying to avoid?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109538 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never claimed to have falsified any of the data to which you refer. I have only demonstrated how that data is or may be inconclusive. If you don't acknowledge the exposures in the data, who is it that is actually clinging to a demonstrably false belief? What are you trying to avoid?
From the KAB Bullshit Dictionary:

in·con·clu·sive (nkn-klsv)
adj.
Not conclusive

Example: A global flood that destroyed all life (except for Noah & Co) which would have taken the environment hundreds if not thousands of years to recover from can not be detected unless the data has a one year resolution.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109539 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?
Genetic bottlenecks can be directly observed and directly confirmed. Chemical reactions are binary. They either occur or they don't, and they can be confirmed by independent agents anywhere at any time. The shape of the Earth, ultimately, is only directly observed by the scant few people who venture into space. The rest is trust in our instruments. Chemistry is direct observation of the facts. For the direct confirmation of the Earth's shape, we must rely on the scant few's say-so and pictures which we cannot ensure are accurate to the same degree we can ensure chemical reactions are accurate. In other words, chemistry trumps say-so and pictures every time.
KAB

United States

#109540 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you're ultimately arguing for the validity of invisible Jewmagic which cannot be tested, no I don't.(shrug)
I notice how you consistently invent something with which to take issue rather than take issue with what I actually provide.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109541 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice how you consistently invent something with which to take issue rather than take issue with what I actually provide.
"...take issue with..."?

Nature abhors a vacuum.
KAB

United States

#109542 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that you should take this position when you have repeatedly argued that all those civilizations of the world who never noticed the flood simply forgot to make note of it.
I did not state that the Bible doesn't document the global flood. I stated that the Bible nowhere uses the expression "global flood".
KAB

United States

#109543 Feb 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
PROVEN A LIAR - AGAIN.
Gen 7:
"4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH every living creature I have made...”
"...17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL THE HIGH MOUNTAINS UNDER THE ENTIRE HEAVENS WERE COVERED. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains TO A DEPTH OF MORE THAN FIFTEEN CUBITS. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
SQUIRM, BABY.
Thanks for the data showing that the expression "global flood" is not used.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109544 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not state that the Bible doesn't document the global flood. I stated that the Bible nowhere uses the expression "global flood".
I understood what you said. Makes little difference.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109545 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data showing that the expression "global flood" is not used.
Are you now accepting that Noah's flood never happened or are you just resorting to your usually language hair-splitting.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109546 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data showing that the expression "global flood" is not used.
So then it was not a miracle, just a local flood, same as many others. Good, you're slowly returning to reality.
KAB

United States

#109547 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Two different topics, two different types of evidence.
"Airtight" is not a topic sensitive concept.

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 ... 36 min Frindly 861
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min Ben Avraham 77,048
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Frindly 32,268
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr The FACTory 222,017
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 21 hr Dogen 4,321
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Mon The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. Mon Willy 8
More from around the web