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

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

There are 152231 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

Wilson, NC

#110394 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there is a tremendous amount of knowledge about the Bible that most fundamentalists don't know about and probably won't even read if presented to them.
They tend to keep the head in a Dark Ages kind of place where just some people even knew the Bible. They read every page as literal and leave no room for post interpretation.
When presented with known factual evidence they just reject, reject. Sad really.
Why are you afraid to test your hypothesis? The scientific method calls for testing. Provide something specific to one of your (Ingersoll's) points, and see if I read it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110395 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Start presenting some data, and we can determine that for ourselves instead of just accepting the conclusions of others (Galatians 6:5; Romans 14:12).
So if no one gives you data to back up what they say do you just discard/ignore what they are saying and believe its not true??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110396 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Start presenting some data, and we can determine that for ourselves instead of just accepting the conclusions of others (Galatians 6:5; Romans 14:12).
Just read the Pentateuch critically and you'll find your data.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#110397 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.
That's not data; that's just a link to data.

And, the Bible is not evidence of the Bible's veracity, any more than my testimony is evidence of my testimony's veracity. Try again.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110398 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your reply Maat,
There is one thing I have found that most all of them just reject out of hand. Tell them Adam and Ever never existed and therefore there was no need for Jesus, and see what the reaction is..:-)
Oh, they'll still insist on this: http://www.google.com/imgres...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110399 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe Mr. Ingersoll got some of his data from Thomas Jefferson's writings in the 1700's Also Higher Criticism had started in the early to middle 1800's I believe.
Some of KAB's post is telling:

"I know nothing of Mr. Ingersall... I know that his assertions are either unconfirmed or wrong."

I'd have to call that prejudice.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110400 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.
Folklore.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110401 Feb 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not data; that's just a link to data.
And, the Bible is not evidence of the Bible's veracity, any more than my testimony is evidence of my testimony's veracity. Try again.
Hehehe.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110402 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When the link is to a volume or location which is much more general than the specific data needed at the time, I will make such an observation virtually every time. If someone wants to make a specific point they can be expected to provide the specific confirming data/reference. If one line/page is all that's needed then the reference should not be a book.
Specific conclusions or precise data it is based on should only be provided to peope of whom we know they will scrutinize all the material with a fine toothcomb and present us with a razorsharpanalysis and either supporting evidence or point out the way to falsify it.
You are not in that category, and we doubt you even read any.
That's apart from understanding it.
So the future can only hold more books, 101's ander other sorts of introductory marterial.

I'm royal with the we's.;p

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110403 Feb 17, 2013
sjeez apart form the simple practical issue of material in a PDF, all or nothing. And usually you will find the page open at the requested information.
If not then information is considered provided.
And why be mentally lazy!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110404 Feb 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, they'll still insist on this: http://www.google.com/imgres...
9QEwAQ&dur=2558
The horrible thing is that the original does not state rib but side.
So they are frankly equal.
Womens rights hard fought to be able to study, work a.s.o.
It's like we are going back to the dark ages.
So all in all another testimony to stupidity.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110405 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
That was written by Robert Ingersoll in the late 1800's. You see they had already noticed that there were anachronisms and other unsolvable problems with the Pentateuch's text. Enough problems that many many of the scholars believe Moses did not write it and that possibly Moses was fictitious.
Higher criticism has found 2 creation stories and 2 flood stories blended together in the Genesis chapter, and then there are the anachronisms of Abraham and Ur of the Chaldee's and the rescue of Lot from the city of Dan, and the list of Edomite Kings that was not known to Moses.
There is also two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham. Two stories about the naming of Isaac. Two stories about the renaming of Jacob. Two versions of the Ten commandments. Some refer to God as Yahweh and others as Elohim.
All of this and more comes from the Documentary Hypothesis and is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.
If you add to all of this the fact that the Exodus is a fictional story that kind of leaves Moses in a vacuum. Was he real or not.
It is obvious you've never read or researched "The Signature of GOD" by Grant Jefferies.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110406 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the Pentateuch critically.......
You should follow your own advice concerning human from non-human evolution.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110407 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
That was written by Robert Ingersoll in the late 1800's. You see they had already noticed that there were anachronisms and other unsolvable problems with the Pentateuch's text. Enough problems that many many of the scholars believe Moses did not write it and that possibly Moses was fictitious.
Higher criticism has found 2 creation stories and 2 flood stories blended together in the Genesis chapter, and then there are the anachronisms of Abraham and Ur of the Chaldee's and the rescue of Lot from the city of Dan, and the list of Edomite Kings that was not known to Moses.
There is also two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham. Two stories about the naming of Isaac. Two stories about the renaming of Jacob. Two versions of the Ten commandments. Some refer to God as Yahweh and others as Elohim.
All of this and more comes from the Documentary Hypothesis and is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.
If you add to all of this the fact that the Exodus is a fictional story that kind of leaves Moses in a vacuum. Was he real or not.
Robert Ingersoll was an evolutionist, but he wasn't a scientist. He was a lawyer. Funny how you'll take his 19th. century philosophy and discard that from a micro-biochemist professor. In reality, it supports my claim that human from non-human evolution is not science, but a humanist philosophy.
LowellGuy

United States

#110408 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Robert Ingersoll was an evolutionist, but he wasn't a scientist. He was a lawyer. Funny how you'll take his 19th. century philosophy and discard that from a micro-biochemist professor. In reality, it supports my claim that human from non-human evolution is not science, but a humanist philosophy.
So, you won't bring up Simon Greenleaf anymore, then?
KAB

United States

#110409 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So if no one gives you data to back up what they say do you just discard/ignore what they are saying and believe its not true??
No
KAB

United States

#110410 Feb 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the Pentateuch critically and you'll find your data.
You are the one attempting to make a point. Provide specific references which you think make the point(s). The whole Pentateuch does not relate to your individual points. Cite the specific passage(s) which do. Do your homework. Short of that, you have nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110411 Feb 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.
That's an assertion, it's not data or evidence at all, he asked for data.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110412 Feb 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You should follow your own advice concerning human from non-human evolution.
Alright, if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did humans come into being? Note, I asked how, "god dun it" isn't how, that's who.
KAB

United States

#110413 Feb 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not data; that's just a link to data.
And, the Bible is not evidence of the Bible's veracity, any more than my testimony is evidence of my testimony's veracity. Try again.
The question raised is about authorship of the document, not veracity. A statement from the document about its authorship is data about its authorship. Try to stay on point!

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) 4 min replaytime 209,896
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 20,285
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web