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

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

There are 151417 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110352 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not on the "no global flood about 4500 years ago" side?

That is not a side. That is orientation to factual reality and an absence of delusional ideation on the subject.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110353 Feb 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's not a "side".
That's a fact.
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110354 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Reference to larger reality just demonstrates again how foolish your whole argument is. You need to believe crazy things in order to rationalize your religious beliefs (the larger context of this discussion). Summer is only one of the civilizations that were existing before, after and (oddly) DURING the alleged global flood.
Your choice to believe nonsense is your choice. I'm just saying what the facts are.
As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110355 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.

You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110356 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

I am just saying that psychology and neurology are two more fields of science that disagree with you.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110357 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.
You are such a parrot, and your parroting my statement in this case confirms there are two sides to whether there are two sides. QED. Also, I accept the two sides (in both cases), so no anathema to me.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110358 Feb 16, 2013
.
“It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.

No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.

We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.

We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.

We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.

And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.

We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired — were authentic — until the second century after Christ.

We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish.“ Robert G. Ingersoll, 1894
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110359 Feb 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
.
“It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.
No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.
No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.
We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.
We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.
God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.
And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.
We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired — were authentic — until the second century after Christ.
We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish.“ Robert G. Ingersoll, 1894
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).

BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110360 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).
BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.
Do you think that the list is lying??
Have you heard/read any of this before...by other writers??
Do you have a opinion of Mr. Ingersall's research??
Do you think he is a credible scholar??
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#110361 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.
The deluded do tend to view demonstrable reality as a mere matter of opinion. Of course, nobody cares what the delusional "think." Well, except the Republican party.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#110362 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but I know something you don't know ... the mare is not left-handed!
Distraction.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110363 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
.
“It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line.
Your "author" has no idea if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. His "intelligent and honest theologians " are labeled that simply because they have the same liberal agenda.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110364 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a parrot, and your parroting my statement in this case confirms there are two sides to whether there are two sides. QED. Also, I accept the two sides (in both cases), so no anathema to me.

When I find a quote that is evidence of psychological projection I simply repeat it back to the sender so they can see that what they wrote is more supportive of the "other side".

You don't accept two sides. You MAKE two sides. Science indicates that the evidence only supports one possibility.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110365 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You see. The less data you require, the more you can know, and the easier it is to know it. The gottcha is that the greater are the chances of being wrong. Thanks for the completely dataless example of abundant knowledge (i.e., thanks for nothing).
BTW, I will stand by to consider purported confirming data for any one of that long list of assertions.

These are not the assertions. This is the understanding of the bible that has resulted from hundreds of years of scholarship.

That any of those things were true are the assertions that you cannot support with data.

If you have any data at all that Moses wrote anything then I would be happy to see it. Til then I will not hold my breath.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110366 Feb 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your "author" has no idea if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. His "intelligent and honest theologians " are labeled that simply because they have the same liberal agenda.

Incorrect. The author knows that Moses did not write the Pentateuch as it was first written nearly a thousand years after the death of Moses (assuming he even ever existed).

Why can't fundamentalists deal with the reality. I find value in the bible based on what is there, not based on who wrote it. Is that so hard?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110367 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that the list is lying??
Have you heard/read any of this before...by other writers??
Do you have a opinion of Mr. Ingersall's research??
Do you think he is a credible scholar??
Since none of the research was provided/referenced, I don't know if the list is lying, mistaken, or born from ignorance.

Some of it I have heard/read before, also unaccompanied by confirming data.

None of Mr. Ingersall's research was provided/referenced, but I do know that I have more data available to me in 2013 than he had in 1894. Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.

I know nothing of Mr. Ingersall beyond what you provided. Based on presently available data, I know that his assertions are either unconfirmed or wrong. That snapshot does not smack of credibility.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110368 Feb 17, 2013
Nice summation Dogen.

Just in case your link was not opened:

As logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110369 Feb 17, 2013
Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.

That's using the word 'know' in the sense of 'make i up', figment of someones imagination of arbitrary choice.

I recall that several people here have allready stresses that 'know 'in a scientific way would be reasoning by induction. And based on proven facts.
So even though a singular mention of an occurence, has no further information, we can still make a statement about how credible it would be to f.i. treat it as a fact in the material world of knowledge and not the imaginary world of believe.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110370 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Nice summation Dogen.
Just in case your link was not opened:
As logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]
Yes.

KAB's eternal wail: "That's not the data! That's just a link to where the data is!"

Sheesh.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110371 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Summary statements about data are not the data. A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data. The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid.
It's called science, as in providing a reasonable explanation for the data.
It requires interpretation of the data.

All sites shown, have data and we even provided links to books that teach the method for gathering reliable data, how to understand the gathered data, and how to present it. As well as when artefacts and false data can occur.
So nothing get's thrown out as you suggest but wold be anomalous data that needs an explanation.
And basicly this entire line of bringing up 4500 BP is based on an example Dogen provided to explain the statistical method and when it is perceived as reliable. Not on the actual paper on the cheetah bottle neck.

I guess you forgot that.

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 min One way or another 201,150
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min ChristineM 15,853
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min One way or another 40,375
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr ChristineM 90
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Jul 21 THE LONE WORKER 41
More from around the web