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

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

There are 150971 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111382 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
Dataless? What sedimentary data do you propose that declares Barringer lake sediments were the result of ANY catastrophic flood? "Bold dataless declaration..?" What real sedimentary data do you have that all land masses were simultaneously submerged to depths between 22.5 to 29,000 feet? I don't mean to rush you, but you've already had 4,500 years to find some. Tic tock tic tock....
KAB

United States

#111383 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Lies of the Watchtowerites.
The NWT and the voice of satan
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20...
As your reference notes, appeals to authority prove nothing. The critical question is simply whether a given rendering of Jn. 1:1 is grammatically and contextually valid or not. That will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion. If there is some specific point of data in the reference that you want considered in this regard, identify it, and I will respond.
KAB

United States

#111384 Mar 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you read ancient Hebrew? I think the original parchments are Hebrew, of course it's probably several different dead languages. However, the originals are not the bible.
We don't actually have any originals, but the oldest manuscripts can be expected, in general, to be closest to the originals. Don't you agree? In that respect, they are the closest we have to "the Bible".
KAB

United States

#111385 Mar 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The real question is, which of the evidences can ONLY be attributed to design?
Until you have better evidence for design than for random mutation and natural selection, or any other naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, design is out and the naturalistic explanation is in. Simple as that.
Only design explains ALL the available data.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111386 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As your reference notes, appeals to authority prove nothing. The critical question is simply whether a given rendering of Jn. 1:1 is grammatically and contextually valid or not. That will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion. If there is some specific point of data in the reference that you want considered in this regard, identify it, and I will respond.
Previously, you've stated the the Bible is reliable. Now you state: "...appeals to authority prove nothing" and (validity) "...will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion."
Further, you state that you will respond to "a specific point of data."
Why the sudden change in personal policy, KAB?
LowellGuy

United States

#111387 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
We can't attribute phenomena to something for which there is no evidence beyond a Bronze Age story that is contradicted by itself as well as other similar stories from the same time and geographic region. The evidence should lead you to a conclusion, not vice versa.
KAB

United States

#111388 Mar 1, 2013
Tyler in Wonderland wrote:
We're not actually still going on about this flood nonsense in here, are we?
Every time the "no flood" team raises it, which seems to be every time they're at a loss for a data based input to whatever the challenge of the moment is. I think it stems from a safe-harbor presumption.
LowellGuy

United States

#111389 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design is a very focused real-world process, just as organisms changing thru time is a real process, critical to ToE.
Pointless. Try having a point next time. Tautologies are not useful for figuring out how the universe works. The scientific method is. It doesn't care about reputations of claimants, nor does it accept "true until proven otherwise" regarding claims about natural phenomena. As soon as the scientific method appeared, fundamentalism sprouted up. What a coincidence, eh?
LowellGuy

United States

#111390 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Only design explains ALL the available data.
If the gist of your argument is "God is magic and can make things any way he wants," you've already admitted that things like evidence and science are irrelevant. A panacea explanation is ultimately useless, as one can plug in literally anything imaginable that is unfalsifiable and the explanation is no less useful. Replace "God" with "Zargbon the eternal sorceror" and you're no less able to make the same assertion. The entire premise of falsifiability, that an explanation can be proven wrong, is at the core of the scientific method, which is at the core of every great discovery, technology, and innovation of the last 200 years. What's "God magic" done for us lately?
KAB

United States

#111391 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Shrug. So you keep saying despite voluminous proof. Belief doesn't create reality. Faith isn't fact. Fantasy isn't evidence. NWT is not reliable. To a point it's interesting to reflect on your droll delusions - beyond that point it's merely automaton repetition and it becomes ever more clear that you've nothing left to contribute -
and so the melody skipskipskips and becomes the refrain....
"You should never argue with a crazy man ma ma man;
You oughtta know by now."
Still not one sample of confirming data, but your side keeps telling me you DO have it. This will end when you provide one.
LowellGuy

United States

#111392 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If your favorites were challenged on a point, would you check against the Sinaitic, Alexandrine, Vaticanus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls for resolution?
If anything therein contradicted demonstrable reality, such as birds coming before land animals, or even contemporaneously with land animals, should the reality be considered wrong or the book wherein we find the claim?
KAB

United States

#111393 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Leviticus 11? For definition of kind we go back to Genesis. Where did you learn the bible? From a cult religious track?
Where does your word appear in Genesis?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111394 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time the "no flood" team raises it, which seems to be every time they're at a loss for a data based input to whatever the challenge of the moment is. I think it stems from a safe-harbor presumption.
1) The data has been reviewed.
2) You're a loony.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111395 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Still not one sample of confirming data, but your side keeps telling me you DO have it. This will end when you provide one.
No it won't. You will reject any and all data that does not agree with your predetermined answers. That's what you've always done and that what you will always do.

PS: You still a loony.
Tyler in Wonderland

Phoenixville, PA

#111396 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time the "no flood" team raises it, which seems to be every time they're at a loss for a data based input to whatever the challenge of the moment is. I think it stems from a safe-harbor presumption.
I'd think the whole discussion would be put to rest after it became clear that there is no data whatsoever to support the occurrence of a global flood, especially one claimed to have happened so recently.
KAB

United States

#111397 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are unaware that the definition of Fowl is not found in Leviticus 111.
I'm quite aware of that. That's at the heart of my point. The ancient Hebrew word meaning fowl, and only fowl, is not there, yet that is what Kitten cited as if it was.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111398 Mar 1, 2013
Tyler in Wonderland wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd think the whole discussion would be put to rest after it became clear that there is no data whatsoever to support the occurrence of a global flood, especially one claimed to have happened so recently.
Sadly that never stopped KAB. He does not realize that the burden of proof to find evidence for a flood is upon him. He thinks that we have to "disprove" his flood.
KAB

United States

#111399 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dataless? What sedimentary data do you propose that declares Barringer lake sediments were the result of ANY catastrophic flood? "Bold dataless declaration..?" What real sedimentary data do you have that all land masses were simultaneously submerged to depths between 22.5 to 29,000 feet? I don't mean to rush you, but you've already had 4,500 years to find some. Tic tock tic tock....
The "dataless" reference was relative to your offering which was, and still is, dataless. I provided data. There is lake sediment in the crater.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111400 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time the "no flood" team raises it, which seems to be every time they're at a loss for a data based input to whatever the challenge of the moment is. I think it stems from a safe-harbor presumption.
Data? Where IS your data?
Any time da flud, Jonah's fish, the chronological and logical disorders of Genesis, Goliath killed twice, bats are birds, talking animals, who built Enoch, Pi = 3, Noah's population bottleneck, etc. is raised, you produce NOTHING - repeat, NOTHING - aside from "the Bible is accurate no matter what it says." Talk about a safe-harbor presumption!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111401 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "dataless" reference was relative to your offering which was, and still is, dataless. I provided data. There is lake sediment in the crater.
No, you are fixated on your statement that there are hundreds of feet of lake sediment in the crater. That is merely a true statement, not data. What else have you provided? As usual, NOTHING.
I remind you that I have provided no less than 3 links which describe the formation and composition of the crater and sediments.
And I remind you AGAIN, MIND YOUR 9TH COMMANDMENT.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr JustASkeptic 13,298
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr DREDD JUDGE 197,404
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr renee 31,281
Evolution in action 19 hr MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web