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

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

There are 141854 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.

““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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110372 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement about summary statements about data are not the data. A statements such as "A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data" is not the data. Your statement that "The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid" may not be warranted as a valid statement.
That's meta-talk and way over his head.
Like i said if someone dismisses Tangled Banks clear and concise presentation, the problem would definitely be theirs.

4500 was indeed a new goal-post we started out somewhere around 5000. And everyone understood that is was an arbitrarily chose number. Something to work around. So basicly there are no sides when it comes to the ballpark number.

We also addeed that the hebrew bible does not give any indication whatsoever.
Our 'side' understands that parables are stories with a, or rather several lessons in them.
Also their calendar was chosen arbitrarily.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110373 Feb 17, 2013
Do we know all that?...word of me.

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.

Well it's all about persian mores so nothing to do with hebrews.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110374 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.
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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110375 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Refer to the comment above. There is much more to this then I wrote of.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110376 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Do we know all that?...word of me.
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.
Well it's all about persian mores so nothing to do with hebrews.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110377 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.
Agree.
Though i do not see the same level of confusion in the jewish reaction. But Saadia Gaon (a period of time) and a scholar and elder of that time allready wrote paraphrased: that which can not be explained by rational means must be read as metaphore.
Christians seem the get all fired up, confused and defensive.
Or simply ignore it alltogether.
Outspoken rejection i've rarely come accross, only in defence against Islamic assertions.
But the pick and choose method is noticable.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110378 Feb 17, 2013
On the judaism forum i stopped clarifying textual critizism when 'support of non-use'i.e. 'not supported' of certain concepts and words was not understood or rather misunderstood with a bombardment of post showing that every greek text with text-critical footnotes stated: Not supported by ...codices.' And the remark what my problem was if it appeared in all of those. 9-9 :P

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110379 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

I suggest you do more reading and waste less time on the internet. These are mainstream understandings from literally hundreds of years of academic research. Ignoring reality does not make it less real.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Since Ingersall's research is consistent with the other academic research still being done today that is a moot point. Besides, the only thing you do with data is warp it to fit your misconceptions so you can decrease your cognitive dissonance. This is about your ego and your not wanting to really know. It is not about the truth.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Remember my principle: The less you have, the more you can "know" since the data to prove you wrong is not yet available.

And since you ignore all real data you are one of the know nothings.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

They are neither unconfirmed nor are they likely to be incorrect based on current scholarship.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110380 Feb 17, 2013
Had to read that over again.
The actual footnotes will state Supported...bit the meaning is thus the non-use or non-appearance is also to be seen in the following codices.

I'll admit it is confusing.
One wiki page i came accross lately explicitely mentioned it. Support here means to non use.
The contributor had probably run in the same problem on the discussion page.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110381 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree.
Though i do not see the same level of confusion in the Jewish reaction. But Saadia Gaon (a period of time) and a scholar and elder of that time already wrote paraphrased: that which can not be explained by rational means must be read as metaphor.
Christians seem the get all fired up, confused and defensive.
Or simply ignore it all-together.
Outspoken rejection I've rarely come across, only in defense against Islamic assertions.
But the pick and choose method is noticeable.
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..:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110382 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you do more reading and waste less time on the internet. These are mainstream understandings from literally hundreds of years of academic research. Ignoring reality does not make it less real.
<quoted text>
Since Ingersall's research is consistent with the other academic research still being done today that is a moot point. Besides, the only thing you do with data is warp it to fit your misconceptions so you can decrease your cognitive dissonance. This is about your ego and your not wanting to really know. It is not about the truth.
<quoted text>
And since you ignore all real data you are one of the know nothings.
<quoted text>
They are neither unconfirmed nor are they likely to be incorrect based on current scholarship.
Precision takedown of a comment my friend....thanks :-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110383 Feb 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree.
Though i do not see the same level of confusion in the jewish reaction. But Saadia Gaon (a period of time) and a scholar and elder of that time allready wrote paraphrased: that which can not be explained by rational means must be read as metaphore.
Christians seem the get all fired up, confused and defensive.
Or simply ignore it alltogether.
Outspoken rejection i've rarely come accross, only in defence against Islamic assertions.
But the pick and choose method is noticable.

If you have not read it, I recommend Bart Ehrman's story about how he came to reject fundamentalism. The amusing parts of the story are how his peers and professors at Moody Bible College tried to keep him away from "liberal" and worldly understandings of the bible. Of course when he discovered those issues he came to realize that his fundamental world view was not adequate to deal with the information onslaught he received in graduate school. He wrote one paper for a fundamentalist professor rationalizing an error in Mark. The professor wrote on the paper "Maybe Mark just made a mistake".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110384 Feb 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Precision takedown of a comment my friend....thanks :-)

Those of us with brains need to stand up to the ignorant masses.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110385 Feb 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110386 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have not read it, I recommend Bart Ehrman's story about how he came to reject fundamentalism. The amusing parts of the story are how his peers and professors at Moody Bible College tried to keep him away from "liberal" and worldly understandings of the bible. Of course when he discovered those issues he came to realize that his fundamental world view was not adequate to deal with the information onslaught he received in graduate school. He wrote one paper for a fundamentalist professor rationalizing an error in Mark. The professor wrote on the paper "Maybe Mark just made a mistake".
;)
Christine M also recommended a lot of books with different views of jesus. But this one i recommended myself to someone...she could get a copy but i can't.
I live in a small village now, with about 52 churches. Before, i lived in a university town with the biggest university library in Europe or so they claim and also a well stocked ordinary library.
Member of both. If you see J(acqueline) de Moor referenced in papers on theology you can look up which one she lorded over.

But if you need a book here, you have to fill in a long list of irrelevant post 911 questions. I've not requested a book since or I'll try to get one of the librarians to use their system, without all the pesky questions. And the search system is different.
Well used to that. You need to know exactly what you are looking for, but if it's not in stock it's like it never existed in the first place! Though they might have changed that by now.
And they down-sized so more books of substance disappear and are replaced with more popular.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110387 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Those of us with brains need to stand up to the ignorant masses.
Small christian village with visiting mormons on rotation base.
I almost caused a rito at a copy machine onece. Copying some pages from Finkelsteins book.
They keep it polite but 'the bible as myth' did not go down well.

Though some were very curious, that strange combination of pursed lips and big shiny eyes, so i exposed the title and authors quite well.
I'll bet clandestine reading is being perpetrated.;p

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110388 Feb 17, 2013
rito-riot onece-once
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110389 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Indeed you do repeat things back whether the "reworked" statement makes sense or not. Your science related dataless assertion is just as worthless as ever.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110390 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.

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) 3 min Blitzking 168,961
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 13 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web