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

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

There are 151492 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110775 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes<quoted text>i think so.
Idiotic.

I wouldn't give a crap what a doctor's beliefs were - even if they were your nutcase flavor - if they could save a life.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110776 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>He wouldn't and that is why we use him. He is a Russian name Soosaar.
What the f*ck does his nationality have to do with it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110777 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>He wouldn't and that is why we use him. He is a Russian name Soosaar.
And if he wouldn't recommend the best to treat a patient - regardless of belief - he is a quack. Tell him I said so.
KAB

United States

#110778 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then to you Bill Gates is the supreme scientific expert.
I see you remain logically clueless in Seattle. I know you won't take any direction from me, but you might want to ask someone you trust what's wrong with your reasoning here.
KAB

United States

#110779 Feb 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What is there to understand? It is a attempt to describe the source of everything. Nice little story but I attach no great importance to it other than some historical value.
I only argue against those who think it literally correct. Or those that attempt to squeeze it into reality.
What was under consideration is only two verses from that account. Why is it you don't want to pursue your position on those two verses. It's easy to see that it doesn't lead where you want it to. Of course, you can always get back on point and attempt to prove otherwise, but then you've already had that opportunity and chose a course of avoidance.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110780 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you remain logically clueless in Seattle. I know you won't take any direction from me, but you might want to ask someone you trust what's wrong with your reasoning here.
You inferred that financial profit determines the scientific validity of any data. Bill has a ton of data, and the most profit of anyone, thus by your inference he is the authority on science.

Of course he's also an atheist and wouldn't be ignorant enough to agree with you on the matter.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110781 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>He wouldn't and that is why we use him. He is a Russian name Soosaar.
"The doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."

True to form, Marky Boy. You admit to using him not for his expertise, but for his theology. Can you say b i g o t?
Do you actually think your doctor is going to tic off his list of specialist referrals:
Dr. Rosencratz: good, nix - Jewish
Dr. Assad: good, nix - Muslim
Dr. Holahan: good, nix - idol worshiping Catholic
Dr. Oliver: good, nix - doesn't pray before eating
"Sorry, Mr. Man11, we'll have to send your wife to Dr. Dingleberry. He's killed 8 patients so far this year, but I see him in church and he really needs the money for his lawsuits."

You cannot know who your doctor would recommend in such a case, so you are presumptuously and prescriptively placing words in his mouth - just like you do with whatever model, version and edition of God you've settled on.
KAB

United States

#110782 Feb 22, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
No cloud cover.
And about waters not meaning waters i posted an entire thesis.
I'm not going to repeat information that you do not take note of anyway.
The translation is the simpleton version. From greek to latin to english. At a certain point under cultural pressure of outsiders people come to believe that the translation is ánd literal ánd correct.
It was in any case usefull to the church being created as in terms of having the god given right to dominate the world.
Any disagreement would have you burned at the stake.
Greek and latin had even less words and concepts to start with.
So now we are maybe living in slightly enlightened times were textual criticism and paleo-hebrew are properly studied and results published.
None of it dimishes what people want to believe.
Though i would frankly say that it gives more scope to the meaning.
Is this your "waters" thesis?

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

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110783 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What was under consideration is only two verses from that account. Why is it you don't want to pursue your position on those two verses. It's easy to see that it doesn't lead where you want it to. Of course, you can always get back on point and attempt to prove otherwise, but then you've already had that opportunity and chose a course of avoidance.
I don't give a crap where it leads. It's just an old myth invented by some dude(s) starting at the ancient sky. It's *YOU* that want to make it lead to where you want it to.

As far as proof, that's been done many time on this very forum. Genesis is wrong. Tough shit that you don't like it but those are the facts.

And you no one to talk about avoidance.
KAB

United States

#110784 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You inferred that financial profit determines the scientific validity of any data. Bill has a ton of data, and the most profit of anyone, thus by your inference he is the authority on science.
Of course he's also an atheist and wouldn't be ignorant enough to agree with you on the matter.
No, I implied (it's the receiver who infers, as you did) that financial profit can result from specific targetted handling of data. Science is not the only realm in which data resides and is used, unless you want to include as science everything which uses data (e.g., finance?). Additionally, I don't think Bill Gates has single-handedly and directly administered all that data for profit. Did you know he he's part of a company which employs many thousands of data-handling people?
KAB

United States

#110785 Feb 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't give a crap where it leads. It's just an old myth invented by some dude(s) starting at the ancient sky. It's *YOU* that want to make it lead to where you want it to.
As far as proof, that's been done many time on this very forum. Genesis is wrong. Tough shit that you don't like it but those are the facts.
And you no one to talk about avoidance.
With your dataless rant response, you rest my case.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110786 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I implied (it's the receiver who infers, as you did) that financial profit can result from specific targetted handling of data. Science is not the only realm in which data resides and is used, unless you want to include as science everything which uses data (e.g., finance?). Additionally, I don't think Bill Gates has single-handedly and directly administered all that data for profit. Did you know he he's part of a company which employs many thousands of data-handling people?
So you implied it, either way I was just showing the logic behind your implication.

Yes, I do confuse imply and infer a lot, sorry, my bad.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110787 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What was under consideration is only two verses from that account. Why is it you don't want to pursue your position on those two verses. It's easy to see that it doesn't lead where you want it to. Of course, you can always get back on point and attempt to prove otherwise, but then you've already had that opportunity and chose a course of avoidance.
Verses, schmerses.
You can point at the history of the making of "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" and provide data about it's screenwriting, cast, production, marketing... but there is NO DATA about Abbott and Costello ACTUALLY "meeting" a mummy. To launch into discussion of how Bud and Lou/Pete and Freddie interacted with a reanimated Egyptian corpse is precisely the same thing you and Marky inevitably try to lead to in this discussion by "referencing" Genesis.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110788 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With your dataless rant response, you rest my case.
You have no case. Run away, little man.
KAB

United States

#110789 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you implied it, either way I was just showing the logic behind your implication.
Yes, I do confuse imply and infer a lot, sorry, my bad.
What you seem to be missing is that I didn't imply what you inferred. Yes, your inference was incorrect, whereas my implication was not.
KAB

United States

#110790 Feb 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Verses, schmerses.
You can point at the history of the making of "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" and provide data about it's screenwriting, cast, production, marketing... but there is NO DATA about Abbott and Costello ACTUALLY "meeting" a mummy. To launch into discussion of how Bud and Lou/Pete and Freddie interacted with a reanimated Egyptian corpse is precisely the same thing you and Marky inevitably try to lead to in this discussion by "referencing" Genesis.
Did you miss the lessons on demonstrated reliable source? If so, the Guy may be able to bring you up to speed. I recommend caution tho since he's not a demonstrated reliable source. Quite the contrary, he has proven to be an unreliable source, but perhaps you still trust him.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110791 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the lessons on demonstrated reliable source? If so, the Guy may be able to bring you up to speed. I recommend caution tho since he's not a demonstrated reliable source. Quite the contrary, he has proven to be an unreliable source, but perhaps you still trust him.
The Guy? You must mean (the author(s) of) the Pentateuch? Yes, I fully understand that those are self-corroboratory, riddled with errors and can only be regarded as accurate through faith - hence, an unreliable source, thank you. Did you have a question specific to that?
KAB

United States

#110792 Feb 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Guy? You must mean (the author(s) of) the Pentateuch? Yes, I fully understand that those are self-corroboratory, riddled with errors and can only be regarded as accurate through faith - hence, an unreliable source, thank you. Did you have a question specific to that?
No, I didn't, but I do. Why can't you provide proof, and there's only one way to establish that you can? Even you are probably astute enough to discern what that is.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110793 Feb 22, 2013
I propose a new subset to the lexicon.
Imitation crab meat is spelled krab. In conversation, typically indicated with the phrase, "krab with a k."

Religies henceforth should employ the words "kata and kroof" when kreferencing Genesis as an alternative to the sciences and "kruth" when submitting dogma or doctrine.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110794 Feb 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
I propose a new subset to the lexicon.
Imitation crab meat is spelled krab. In conversation, typically indicated with the phrase, "krab with a k."
Religies henceforth should employ the words "kata and kroof" when kreferencing Genesis as an alternative to the sciences and "kruth" when submitting dogma or doctrine.
How about a different word than "kata". That is already a perfectly good word. It is a Japanese word that is used for a set one man exercise in the martial arts.

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) 5 min It aint necessari... 205,225
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Aura Mytha 18,604
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min IB DaMann 43,336
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 16 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 19 hr Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web