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

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

There are 141364 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

Oxford, NC

#110955 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You better go back and read both again.
The bibles failure to correctly define pi is a major gaff.
But it is easy to rationalize the minor error in the koran.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contra...
None of your referenced material explains/resolves Surah 4:11,12. Beyond that, at least it is acknowledged as something in need of explanation.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110956 Feb 23, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson actual people?
You can see them all on Season 13 Episode 8 of South Park.
So South Park must also be true.
I see you failed to discern the issue.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110957 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not one of the sources of a flood are from a "demonstrated reliable source". The best accounts of the flood (probably and actual localized event) are in records that predate (and disagree with) the bible.
The physical data show that no global flood ever occurred. EVER.
If you can produce some DATA of this flood I will reconsider my statement. Till then the evidence stands. No global flood.
How significant would you consider it if the lacustrine sediments from Meteor Crater in Arizona dated to around 4500 years ago?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110958 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I am not TB but I do miss his more active presence here. I may have learned to repeat data that others are unable to respond to from him. It is a potent weapon against ignorance.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your assertion. If you would like to try to prove them I will sit here and be amused.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I will not provide the data. You need to learn to do your own homework and own thinking. It is the only path to freedom.
I notice you could not provide even one germ of data against my post.
Typical of you.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul was rejected by Jesus' followers. He was the first Christian heretic (who John(?) labels 'false prophet'. All followers who acknowledge Paul are, by definition, heretics.
There are many religions not well received by society. Muslims, Jews, ATHEISTS, SDAs, Christian Scientists, Mormans,.....
As to the JW cult you guys DO get a few things right:
- denial of the Trinity
- denial of deity of Christ
- denial of physical resurrection.
You do down hill fast from there, however.
Things you get wrong are legion:
- Mistranslations of many words including YHWH
- revisionist history (including JW history)
- false prophecies
- what happens after death (more the inconsistency than the dogma)
- 144,000.... enough said.
- Whole nonsense about immortal vs. everlasting life (yes, I have read the nonsense, it is guano crazy).
- New World Translation (again enough said).
many, many, many more.
Or it bespeaks ignorance, which is more likely since it is entirely devoid of data, and anybody can compile a list of assertions.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110959 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is very poor logic.
You like to make a bang sound like a real gun, but all you got are blanks.
The Koran documents event that were unknown to outside history as well till modern archeology verified the claims.
Does that make the Koran evidence based?
The logic is nothing more than establishing that the Bible is correct about something as the Quran likely is also. It was not offered to prove that the entire Bible is evidence based.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110960 Feb 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
Benjamin Franklin: "Lighthouses are more useful than churches,"
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even St. Paul….never met Jesus.
I agree with Franklin and Jefferson regarding churches and "Christianity" as they knew them.

I'm very interested in the proof that Matthew never met Jesus.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110961 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the issue. 3.0 is 100 times less accurate than what school children use in math class. In physics the term is often limited to 3.141592654 (depending on the number of significant digits of the next less accurate term).
In most building projects 3.14159 would be fine. 3.0 is the formula for mud brick huts.
Thanks for reinforcing the point that Pi=3 was not used to make the wash basin, and yet the basin was made. Actually, I doubt they even used Pi in any form to make the basin. I used to make perfect circles for playing marbles on the playground without knowing anything about Pi. If someone had asked me how big around my circle was, I can easily imagine taking the string I used to swing the arc, laying it loosely around the perimeter, and declaring it to be 3 times the diameter.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110962 Feb 23, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Weren't Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson actual people?
You can see them all on Season 13 Episode 8 of South Park.
So South Park must also be true.

KAB wrote:
I see you failed to discern the issue.

I guess I did.
Now could you please help me discern the issue by explaining why the mentioning of Sargon the Great proves the Bible true while the mentioning of Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson doesn't prove South Park true?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110963 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with Franklin and Jefferson regarding churches and "Christianity" as they knew them.
I'm very interested in the proof that Matthew never met Jesus.
You have proof that he did??

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110964 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Stated like a head doctor who is truly in fear of the data he knows he will receive if he opens the door. If that's not so, you will open the door.

I have been welcoming of the data but non have been provide unto me.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110965 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with Franklin and Jefferson regarding churches and "Christianity" as they knew them.
I'm very interested in the proof that Matthew never met Jesus.
Not proof of course, but there is this from Wikipedia:
“The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (about 100–140 AD), who, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraďdi dialekt&#333;i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (h&#275;rm&#275;neusen —or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialekt&#333;i Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthe...

KAB

Oxford, NC

#110966 Feb 23, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Weren't Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson actual people?
You can see them all on Season 13 Episode 8 of South Park.
So South Park must also be true.
KAB wrote:
I see you failed to discern the issue.
I guess I did.
Now could you please help me discern the issue by explaining why the mentioning of Sargon the Great proves the Bible true while the mentioning of Billy Mays, Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Walter Cronkite, Dom DeLuise, Edward Kennedy, Natasha Richardson, Bea Arthur, David Carradine, DJ AM, Steve McNair, and Michael Jackson doesn't prove South Park true?
The mention of Sargon only proves that the Bible was correct about Sargon, and is one point on an ever growing list of Bible info confirmed correct. Kitten declared that the Bible has zero evidence to support it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110967 Feb 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You have proof that he did??
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#110968 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. They're documented in a demonstrated reliable source
This would be a LIE!

The Bible is NOT a "demonstrated reliable source".

The Bible is a bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE that only people who are truly ignorant and deluded think is "literally and inerrantly" true.

How deluded are these people? They actually think that a COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK of any research and empirical evidence in support of the FAIRY TALES in the Bible is actually "evidence" that they must be true.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#110969 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
Skeptic - "There is NO research or evidence for Noah, his ark of the Noachian flood".

"creotard" - "Prove that they didn't exist."

Skeptic - "The fact that there is NO research or empirical evidence that they didn't exixt is evidence that they didn't exist."

"creotard" - "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Skeptic - "There is a COMPLETE AND UTTER ABSENCE of evidence. That should tell you that they weren't real."

"creotard" - "Prove it. Show me that there isn't a single shred of research or empirical evidence that Noah, his ark and the Noachian ark were real."

Skeptic - "There's nothing to show you. That's the point. I can't show you "nothing". There is NOTHING."

"creotard" - "Aha, so you admit that you have nothing that can prove that Noah, his ark and the Noachian flood didn't happen."

----------

"creationism". Absolute, incomprehensible idiocy of Biblical proportions.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110970 Feb 23, 2013
Okay, now I gotcha, KAB.
Sorry.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110971 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't the point, is it? You asserted the certainty of something which you cannot confirm. That's bad form and significantly undermines your credibility.
Humanity has been searching diligently for any indication that god exists and so far we have not found any evidence at all that supports this theory. None. Nada. Zip. We have never observed a single molecule of matter, an exchange of a microjoule of energy, or a single step in the evolution of life on our planet that breaks the laws of physics.

Without any proof at all that something exists, or at least a reasonable hypothesis as to how it could exist, we HAVE to take the stance that it doesn't. Otherwise we will also believe in every ghost and goblin and fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any random crazy idea that people come up with. Thinking that something exists when it clearly doesn't is not belief, it's just an abuse of an overactive imagination which distracts from belief in the truth. David Workman http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article855.html

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110972 Feb 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've moved into the realm of openly stupid. The Bible contains references to Assyrian King Sargon. Compare them with archaeological finds, and you'll see how quickly the Bible moves out of the zero evidence column.
Spiderman lives in New York, since New York is a real place then so is Spiderman, based on your logic. So you cannot deny that Spiderman exists.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110973 Feb 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I too make mistakes. The difference may be that I work very hard to avoid them, and consequently very consistently succeed.
Hubris being your main error. And, of course, poor critical thinking skills and terrible standards of evidence.

Main example: "the reputation of the source of a claim is sufficient justification to consider a claim true without corroborating evidence, turning the claim into evidence of the claim's veracity." Complete horseshit. But, because you require this to be true to justify your belief in things for which there is no supporting evidence and there is contradictory evidence, you uphold it anyway.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110974 Feb 24, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
The Bible is NOT a "demonstrated reliable source".
The Bible is a bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE that only people who are truly ignorant and deluded think is "literally and inerrantly" true.
How deluded are these people? They actually think that a COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK of any research and empirical evidence in support of the FAIRY TALES in the Bible is actually "evidence" that they must be true.
Of course it is demonstrated reliable! Anything that contradicts the Bible's claims can merely be dismissed with a "nuh uh" or "until science conclusively disproves X, X must be considered true." In other words, KAB doesn't apply normal logic to his Bible, because to do so would destroy his ability to believe everything it says.

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 Subduction Zone 164,419
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr emrenil 1,873
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 19,074
When is Quote Mining Justified? 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,618
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 13 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 14 hr cpshrivastava 31
More from around the web