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

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

There are 163768 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109548 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?

But they refuted their own false premise, showing the self correcting nature of science.

Today we have a world full of global sediments and not a trace of a universal deluge anywhere to be found. Unless there is some evidence of 20 mile high giants having roamed the earth we need not consider their existence. Likewise for a global flood. Apparently neither 20 mile tall giants nor global floods ever existed OR they left no evidence of their existence.

To date you have failed to provide any evidence of a global flood, ergo....

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109549 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you check carefully you'll see it's your side which is harping about the correct pronunciation of YHWH. I only harp on what is correct, whatever the subject. Regarding your input, is it quite possible that idea is incorrect, thus not truth at all?

Error in your post. Should read "I only harp on what is incorrect, whatever the subject."

Not like it is the biggest error you have made.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109550 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a proven liar, nothing you say can ever be trusted again. Even if you said the sky was blue, I'd still look out the window now.

I would not even look out the window. I would just assume it is something other than blue until proven otherwise.

He is the most rabid liar around. At least Marksman is genuinely dumb enough to believe his own nonsense.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109551 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When multiple understanding possibilities exist I always acknowledge them. Do you?

What a crock.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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?

You don't seem to understand Biblical criticism if you really believe the above.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109552 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. Why, then, do you go around insulting people, as if they have free will? Your base hypocrisy has been exposed.

As part of the environment we believe we can change people (even though evidence proves us wrong).

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109553 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 will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

"all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered"

" The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 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."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109554 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not even look out the window. I would just assume it is something other than blue until proven otherwise.
He is the most rabid liar around. At least Marksman is genuinely dumb enough to believe his own nonsense.
I have a pet peeve about liars, if you hadn't noticed. ;) Especially ones that lie about having evidence.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109555 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?

It is really quite simple and the error in your logic is easy to expose.

Take evolution for example: lets say there are 29 evidences for evolution and each has a 5% chance of being completely wrong. Using meta analysis we can figure the chance of evolution being wrong.

The chances are 1 in 182,645,149,230,957,031,250,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00 that evolution is wrong. And you are banking on the 1.

Your choice. But you cannot seriously blame the person who takes the 182,645,149,230,957,031,250,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00.

Seriously.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109556 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.
You provided the Bible. I did not invent it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#109557 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".
"or it's equivalent" you said

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109558 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data showing that the expression "global flood" is not used.
What you asked for:
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).
The operative phrase is: "OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN ANY LANGUAGE."
You are welcome. Now you may continue your Chubby Checker routine and we'll all applaud your rendering of the Twist.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#109559 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But they refuted their own false premise, showing the self correcting nature of science.
Today we have a world full of global sediments and not a trace of a universal deluge anywhere to be found. Unless there is some evidence of 20 mile high giants having roamed the earth we need not consider their existence. Likewise for a global flood. Apparently neither 20 mile tall giants nor global floods ever existed OR they left no evidence of their existence.
To date you have failed to provide any evidence of a global flood, ergo....
Dogen, you need to stop parroting BS from atheist websites and attempt to at least understand the garbage you're swallowing. Unless you can provide scientific evidence that no global flood occurred, you should keep quiet.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109560 Feb 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:
1. There is life on other planets!
2. There is NO life on other planets!
Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:
3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.
We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.
And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.
You guys are a walking talking contradiction. 1....he didn't say in the video that it is a possiblity. He said that the universe is huge and rare things happen daily, including life. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support that claim. 2....you guys argue that your philosophies are not faith based, that you MUST HAVE EVIDENCE for you to accept something. Yet there is no other way to accept that there is life else where in the universe except in faith. 3....I'm with you, I have no problem with there possibly being life else where, but at this point there is no reason to think there is.4....that guy in the video gave me many reasons to reject his psuedoscience.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109561 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious!
I'm glad you liked it, but refuting it would be more convincing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109562 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen, you need to stop parroting BS from atheist websites and attempt to at least understand the garbage you're swallowing. Unless you can provide scientific evidence that no global flood occurred, you should keep quiet.
Unless you can provide scientific evidence that a global flood *DID* occur, you should keep quiet.

That's the way it works. You make a claim, you prove it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109563 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.
It is an acceptance of logical conclusions based on evidence.
Logic is not faith. Faith is not logic.
You are weakened to the point of redefintions. It is not a logical conclusion to believe that lifeless matter can evolve into intelligence, consciousness, and self awareness. There is no place in history to give us reason to believe it is possible. The same holds true for every answer I supplied. Believe it if you want to, but it, by definition, is a faith based belief no matter how much to try to wiggle out of it. Why do even try this route? It is obvious to any unbiased observer that what I am saying is exactly the case.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109564 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad you liked it, but refuting it would be more convincing.
Refuting what? That you're quibbling over the use of the words "ape" and "common ancestor"? Our common ancestor WAS an early ape. You seem completely unable to learn anything.

Perhaps I should have just said "Stupid!"

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109565 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen, you need to stop parroting BS from atheist websites and attempt to at least understand the garbage you're swallowing. Unless you can provide scientific evidence that no global flood occurred, you should keep quiet.
Still lying. You were presented evidence, you are lying when you say none was presented.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109566 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are weakened to the point of redefintions. It is not a logical conclusion to believe that lifeless matter can evolve into intelligence, consciousness, and self awareness. There is no place in history to give us reason to believe it is possible. The same holds true for every answer I supplied. Believe it if you want to, but it, by definition, is a faith based belief no matter how much to try to wiggle out of it. Why do even try this route? It is obvious to any unbiased observer that what I am saying is exactly the case.
Blah, blah, blah.

The unbiased observers have been calling. They say you're full of it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109567 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
From your same reference:
In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
You remain consistently wrong.
I don't care who orginated the concept. It is not scientific. It is a fantasy...

"Literary scholar Heidi Scott argued that Gould's use of analogy and metaphor constitutes a non-scientific discourse attempting to validate a scientific theory.[62] She claims that Gould—particularly in his popular essays—uses a variety of strategies from literature, political science, and personal anecdotes to substantiate the general pattern of punctuated equilibrium (long periods of stasis interrupted by rapid, catastrophic change). Gould responded that critics often made the mistake of confusing the context of discovery with the context of justification. While Gould is celebrated for the color and energy of his prose, as well as his massive interdisciplinary knowledge, critics such as Scott have concerns that the theory has gained undeserved credence among non-scientists because of Gould's rhetorical skills.[62]"

Same source....

In short, no matter who originated it, PE is BS.

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) 22 min ChromiuMan 222,777
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Eagle 12 - 79,975
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? 14 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