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

There are 20 comments on the Mar 15, 2009, Asheville Citizen-Times story 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110673 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Cloud cover: Gen. 1:6,7
Wow. That's a stretch.
KAB wrote:
No revision on the great lights location. Still 4th day. Probably always will be. The significance is not in the time location of the activity. It's in the possible meaning of the word rendered "made".
Since the word "made" can mean almost anything when you use the KAB Flexible Dictionary. Now available in Hebrew, Greek and Semitic.
KAB

United States

#110674 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it as you could only find one thing on the whole page to dispute.
That is clearly a point for me.
I have no use for someone so blinded by his emotional bias that he makes such a patently nonsense statement. No one disciplined by objectivity would commit such an error. Bias may manage to include some truth but works against that objective. Objectivity, on the other hand, drives truth as a matter of course. I always look for signs of objectivity, or lack thereof, in a source.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110675 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
One precedes the other, yes. They are still two distinct fields of study.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110676 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I showed you the how!!! The designer of all life breathed the breath of life into man and he became a living life.
That has never been observed. By your criteria, it means nothing. Besides, you weren't there.
KAB

United States

#110677 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Also false, you use the dictionary to try to limit the meaning of words to what you want them to mean. You even quotemine the dictionary. You also avoid field specific meanings like the proverbial plague.
An assertion easily proven incorrect if you can provide confirming data for even one error.
Give it a crack.
Indeed your assertiion is easily proven incorrect. Here's proof,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Who's seeking to restrict what here vs sticking to established, accepted, "official" definition?
KAB

United States

#110678 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The text does not say anything about cloud cover.
This is called Rationalization. It is a favorite defense mechanism of fundies and fundie cultists.
Gen. 1:6,7. You're free to rationalize otherwise.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110679 Feb 21, 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.
http://c.cslacker.com/1401l.jpg

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110680 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have matter? Can't explain matter? Can't explain ANYTHING! Therefore, science is bullshit, therefore God did it. QED.

Your "argument" is stupid. You are stupid.
KAB

United States

#110681 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I now assume you are joking.
Characteristically wrong again. Bob asks if you've tried therapy to modify this socially undesirable behavior, Doc?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110682 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Knowing the truth often makes one biased towards it.
You already admitted you don't KNOW, you merely believe it on faith. That's not knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief, which has evidence to back it up.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110683 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Deut. 31:9. Your turn.
Have KAB! Have you caught on yet to the fact that no one gives a rats ass about your bible references?
KAB

United States

#110684 Feb 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
God's existence is the core of your religion. Your religion is founded upon that which is confirmed. At the very least, your religion must posit that God exists. If that's the foundation of your religion, then it surely must have been confirmed. Is it only the most important and impressive bits that haven't been confirmed?
Interesting, but understandable, that you take it upon yourself to define the core of MY religion (1 Timothy 2:4-7). What ever happened to freedom of religion?
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#110685 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, but understandable, that you take it upon yourself to define the core of MY religion (1 Timothy 2:4-7). What ever happened to freedom of religion?
You have a right to believe in whatever stupid religion you want. You do NOT have the right to force the rest of us into joining you in your bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE delusions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110686 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I have never read a word by Ken Ham. Now care to address the question you just dodged. Can you have biological human from non-human evolution without chemical evolution?

No. You can't.

What delusions do you have about chemical evolution?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110687 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Atoms don't evolve because atoms don't reproduce on their own, they don't reproduce at all, they are altered in structure through other forces, forces that would destroy life if it was to come close enough to alter the atoms. So your red herring is stupid, it's pointless, and has nothing to do with biology ...
... and Ken Ham made up the "chemical evolution" garbage.

"Chemical Evolution" is an acceptable term and is used in science. Hamms version is a straw-man version of it.

http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/learn

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110688 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no use for someone so blinded by his emotional bias that he makes such a patently nonsense statement. No one disciplined by objectivity would commit such an error. Bias may manage to include some truth but works against that objective. Objectivity, on the other hand, drives truth as a matter of course. I always look for signs of objectivity, or lack thereof, in a source.

So you are saying that you never talk to yourself.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110689 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are, of course, free to think whatever you want. Your disdain for documentation is unfortunate. I will continue seeking to resolve matters by analysis/scrutiny of all available data, including documentation.
MOST people are free to think whatever they want. Data? Documentation?
Let me know when your cult lets you read some. It obviously doesn't let you post any.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110690 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed your assertiion is easily proven incorrect. Here's proof,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Who's seeking to restrict what here vs sticking to established, accepted, "official" definition?

You are the one seeking to restrict.

An honest person would have quoted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_science

since we are having a discussion about science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110691 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Gen. 1:6,7. You're free to rationalize otherwise.

This just goes back to Sumerian beliefs about the origin of the sky (why is the sky blue?) and the origin of rain.

I say Gen 1:8 is about god playing with a yo-yo. You're free to rationalize otherwise.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110692 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Characteristically wrong again. Bob asks if you've tried therapy to modify this socially undesirable behavior, Doc?

Therapy is ineffective against psychotic disorders without adjunct psychotropic meds.

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) 2 hr messianic114 161,082
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 4 hr In Six Days 1,409
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Denisova 18,697
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Apr 24 hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web