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.

KAB

United States

#111402 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
There is no change, and you certainly can't establish otherwise by more dataless (i.e., worthless) assertions. You'll soon make the list of those who can expect no response to a dataless post.
KAB

United States

#111403 Mar 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Design can be falsified. Present data showing continuous minimal variation generation-over-generation eventually resulting in some complex new element uncharacteristic of the original organism. No designer would follow a trajectory of minimal differences to achieve an uncharacteristically significant difference.
KAB

United States

#111404 Mar 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
The exercise under consideration is document-to-document comparison to determine which is closest to the original. Additionally, the older may be in harmony with reality, whereas the more recent may not. The "birds/fowl" passages are excellent examples.
KAB

United States

#111405 Mar 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
1) The data has been reviewed.
2) You're a loony.
Everyone can at least be thankful you didn't respond with "Where's the global flood data?".

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111406 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no change, and you certainly can't establish otherwise by more dataless (i.e., worthless) assertions. You'll soon make the list of those who can expect no response to a dataless post.
LOL! You think it matters if you dismiss me to your personal peanut gallery/penalty box? You provide ZERO data of your own and demand data of others, then either adopt it as your own or more often disavow its existence - depending either on how it can be misinterpreted or on how the Holy Spirit instructs you at that moment - or maybe in your mind that is the same thing? THAT, my obtuse fiend, is observable, testable and repeatable DATA. Mind your 3rd AND 9th commandments.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111407 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone can at least be thankful you didn't respond with "Where's the global flood data?".
Unnecessary. We all know you have no flood data.
KAB

United States

#111408 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.
Oh, but there is supportive data whatsoever. Look in the Pinqualit(sp?) Meteor Crater lake.
KAB

United States

#111409 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
The reference was to the lack of confirming data coming from your side, Pi-3 being an excellent example. Why don't you re-run it. I welcome the opportunity to debunk it AGAIN! If you prefer, try another one on your list.
KAB

United States

#111410 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have not provided the comprehensive dating of the sediment(s).
KAB

United States

#111411 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You think it matters if you dismiss me to your personal peanut gallery/penalty box? You provide ZERO data of your own and demand data of others, then either adopt it as your own or more often disavow its existence - depending either on how it can be misinterpreted or on how the Holy Spirit instructs you at that moment - or maybe in your mind that is the same thing? THAT, my obtuse fiend, is observable, testable and repeatable DATA. Mind your 3rd AND 9th commandments.
I love it when your side makes it so easy to make you look foolish. It's one of the best ways to undermine your side's credibility, and it takes almost no effort from me. You just keep stepping in it! Here's a recent data post,

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

What was that about ZERO data? There's plenty more on record.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111412 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.

On, scientifically speaking it would be a bold dataless declaration that Da Flud DID contribute to Barringer's crater.

If I said that Micky Mouse and Buggs Bunny filled in the crater would that be a "bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater"?

You are silly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111413 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?

Sinaiticus for the Old testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls for the New.

[snark]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111414 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's gone from the Black Knight, to the Parrot Sketch to the Cheese Shop to the Argument Clinic with a sideline of "Who's on First."
The Bible is a demonstrably reliable source?! It's nothing but selected history and legends of the Semitic tribes heavily overlaid with mysticism. Debating the translation is like debating with a stray cat whether a ping pong ball or a phillips screwdriver is better for hammering a pair of socks when you're frying polystyrene in a sieve of ice water - it's faulty at the onset and no part of it works.
When a zealot not only aspires to ignorance, but is proud of their progress, what better proof does anyone need of their dishonesty?

Well, I will go with the ping pong balls, but only if they are purple.

;)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111415 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.

?

I saw "design" and "real-world" in the same sentence and my brain went blue.

Guru Meditation #00000005; A6G80000

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111416 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.

You must not have looked at the site. It PROVES the WatchTower LIES when it says various scholars have endorsed, supported, or even said nice things about the NWV.

That is the issue at hand. Your cult tells lies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111417 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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".

But the oldest manuscripts have a minimum of 100 years of errors, editing, scribal additions, frauds,.....

Don't you agree?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111418 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Only design explains ALL the available data.

Design explains NONE of the available data. All you can do with design is say that no matter what is found that is the way god designed it. That why scientists don't put the inmates in charge of the asylum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111419 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'm sorry, can you please convince me that you are really this crazy?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111420 Mar 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

Yea, it is hard to consider that a coincidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111421 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.

SSDD. You hide behind accusations. You know you have no confirming data so you just demand it from us and dismiss it for no valid reason.

You have already admitted the bible is wrong in places, so why not man up and question the whole thing?

Don't do it for us. Do it for yourself. Do it for God.

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) 22 min replaytime 205,445
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 38 min Mad Tom 930
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr It aint necessari... 43,386
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 18,692
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 7 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web